Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

Order for consideration read.

To be considered on Thursday 23 March.

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second Time on Thursday 23 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

The Minister was asked—

Farm Incomes

Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the change in farm incomes over the past three years. [113368]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): From 1996 to 1999, total income from farming fell by 56 per cent. in real terms. Total income from farming increased by 100 per cent. in real terms between 1990 and 1995, before dropping 60 per cent. between 1995 and 1999.

Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful for that honest answer, at least. However, does the Minister yet realise that, in the past three years, farmgate milk prices have fallen by a third, more than 5,000 dairy farmers have given up work, the cost of milk production is 11p per pint and the farmgate price paid is less than 10p a pint? Mr. Micawber would tell the right hon. Gentleman what that means. How long can he remain complacent? Will he be satisfied when the only milk that we can buy in the United Kingdom is frozen milk from France?

Mr. Brown: I am not complacent about the difficulties in the dairy sector. The Government are examining what they can do to help. As the House will know, the remedy lies in the supply chain and in the marketplace.

Mr. David Taylor: As my right hon. Friend knows, agriculture receives more

subsidy than the rest of British industry put together, and it has the lowest incomes for a long time. Is he confident that we are taking genuine and radical steps to move farming away from its dependence on subsidies and transform the common agricultural policy into something that resembles more closely a rural development policy?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The supply side of the CAP, although it is extraordinarily expensive, does not serve United Kingdom agriculture well. That is why, last December, I announced the new direction for agriculture and our making much more use—something that is a departure for the UK Government—of the new second pillar of the CAP, which provides support for farm businesses that is decoupled from production and directed much more to the marketplace than to the CAP's traditional structure.

Mr. David Heath: With dairy farm incomes continuing to fall, with milk prices the lowest in Europe and with supermarkets pushing their three-for-two offer—they buy three litres of milk and pay farmers for only two—is it not time for more action? Will the Minister look again at agrimonetary compensation before it is too late? Will he think about the over-30-months scheme and will he talk some sense into his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry on milk co-operatives and on concerted efforts to increase milk prices?

Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have been a strong advocate of farmer co-operation working through the supply chain. I believe that real benefits accrue to farmers if they are able to exercise some influence further down the supply chain. As for the over-30-months scheme, surely the Government's real objective should be to work towards an unwinding of the scheme. That is clearly obtainable in the medium term. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear at the National Farmers Union conference, the door is not closed on agrimoney.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor), I am sure that the House has recognised that more money has gone into farming through this Government than through any previous Government. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the plight of dairy farmers in Lancashire, who are being paid the lowest prices. Will he have discussions with supermarkets and other middle men paying low and unjustified prices? All that they are doing is putting our poor farmers out of business. I am sure that, with my right hon. Friend's good offices, we can improve the plight of farmers.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. The answer to the problem lies in the supply chain and ultimately in the marketplace. There are not sufficient sums available under the agrimonetary compensation regime, for example, to compensate farmers for the difficulties that they are going through. Of course there are measures at the margin that the Government could take to help. However, we must focus on the real problem, which is the marketplace.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Given that many dairy farmers are selling their milk at a price below the cost of


production, does the Minister support the plan announced today by Safeway and Waitrose to increase the price of milk—yes or no?

Mr. Brown: I have made it absolutely clear in all my answers that the difficulties can be resolved only through the supply chain and in the marketplace. That is why I support the initiatives of retailers that are designed to help their own producers. They have my support and encouragement, but these are private sector arrangements. The hon. Gentleman has listened carefully to my answers, and I notice that those on the Opposition Front Bench are not coming forward with a remedy of their own.

Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Mr. Phil Woolas: What recent assessment he has made of the benefits of the environmentally sensitive areas scheme for wildlife in rural areas. [113369]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Detailed monitoring has taken place since the scheme was introduced in 1987. The results have been used to adapt and refine the scheme to increase environmental benefits.

Mr. Woolas: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The environmentally sensitive area scheme has been welcomed in my constituency. Baroness Young, the chair of English Nature, has described it as the most important decision on the countryside for 20 years. However, can my hon. Friend help my constituent, Mr. Graham Tibbot of Belle Vue farm in Delph, who faces an apparent contradiction over stock density between the ESA scheme and the proposed hill farm allowance scheme? Will my hon. Friend examine that case?

Mr. Morley: I support my hon. Friend's comments on ESAs, which are valuable and provide genuine benefits. The scheme involves some restrictions on stock density, and I appreciate that that can cause anomalies in payments such as hill livestock compensatory allowances. I assure my hon. Friend that we are only too pleased to examine the matter in detail. I shall write to him.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: However beneficial the scheme may be, might it not be thoroughly undermined if hedgerows were grubbed up? Will the Minister put on record the remarks that he made earlier when I tackled him in the water closet, where he said that there is some prospect of seeing off the European directive?

Mr. Morley: I need to be careful about giving the hon. Gentleman privileged access.
I want to make a serious point about the recent directives from the Court of Auditors on field boundaries. There is some logic to them, because the European Union pays a subsidy on the cropped area, which may not always extend right up to the field boundary. However, that is a traditional method of farming in this country. That was acknowledged when we agreed the scheme, which was based on Ordnance Survey maps, with the European Commission. There are risks to the environmental benefits of hedgerows and uncropped edges of fields. We are

discussing that with the European Commission, and we hope that we can reach a workable and reasonable compromise.

Wild Birds

Mr. Hilary Benn: What action he is taking to halt the decline in the number of wild birds in rural areas. [113370]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government's strategy for sustainable development includes a headline indicator on the populations of farmland and woodland birds, which have declined significantly in the past 25 years. Halting and reversing the decline will take time, but our recently announced switch of funding from production support to environmental measures is evidence of our determination to improve that important indicator.

Mr. Benn: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply. Does he know that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has recently bought a lowland arable farm, aptly named Hope farm, to develop agricultural methods that are economic and good for farmland birds and other wildlife? I welcome the increased investment in countryside stewardship in its broadest sense, but will my hon. Friend tell the House his plans for drawing on the lessons of that important research?

Mr. Morley: I agree that that is important research. The RSPB should be congratulated because we must consider the most appropriate changes in agricultural practice to tackle the decline in many farmland species. Those changes can be supported through schemes such as countryside stewardship. I am glad to say that we are increasing the number of schemes that we intend to accept from 1,600 last year to 3,000 this year.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Is not the policy of ripping up English hedgerows and destroying field margins crazy? It is especially crazy given the Bill on access to the countryside that we will consider on Monday. When I was a Minister of State in the Ministry of Agriculture, the Commission endorsed the use of Ordnance Survey maps and satellite monitoring. We should not be considering finding a fair and reasonable compromise, but seeing off the Commission, and pointing out that it agreed to something several years ago and asking how it can accept ripping up English hedgerows. The present policy simply gives ammunition to some of my Euro-sceptic colleagues. Will the Minister tell the Commission that that policy is crazy?

Mr. Morley: It should be remembered that the root of the problem is subsidies to the CAP regime and the way in which they work. However, we believe that the Commission should take into account the practices that have been established in our country. It has agreed to a tolerance of 2 m either side of OS boundaries. That effectively creates a 4 m boundary.
We do not want to over-estimate the impact of the policy because many farms will not be affected by the changes. However, there should be a more flexible approach towards


farms that might be caught by the policy. It is not beyond the realms of possibility to agree that approach with the Commission. We are trying to do that.

Dr. Brian Iddon: In reading the tea leaves, may I take it that my hon. Friend believes that there are alternatives to the pesticides tax, or is it still under consideration?

Mr. Morley: The Prime Minister announced at the National Farmers Union conference that the pesticides tax is not under consideration. There is an argument for various forms of financial instrument, but we must consider the impact that applying them would have on the sector and balance that with the potential benefits. A pesticides tax could have detrimental effects; in addition, more advanced and more environmentally friendly pesticides could be introduced.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: Now that the Government are preparing to compromise on section 28 in the teaching of the birds and bees, will they do another U-turn on an issue affecting the real birds and bees? Given the 15 May deadline for the integrated administration and control system applications, does the Minister appreciate the urgent need to reverse the recent rule change that is forcing farmers to destroy hedgerows and their habitats, on which wild birds depend for food and cover?

Mr. Morley: Let me make it perfectly clear that this is not a rule change, but an interpretation following a visit from the Commission and the auditors in relation to the application of arable area payments through the IACS scheme. It is not a change in respect of the area that is cropped and the area that is paid and we believe that any change or interpretation that could have a detrimental environmental effect on hedges and field boundaries is to be deplored. We are working with the Commission and my right hon. Friend the Minister has had a meeting with Franz Fischler. We were encouraged by the Commissioner's sympathetic response.

Agricultural Development Scheme

Mr. Jim Cunningham: How many applications he has received for grants under the agricultural development scheme to date; and how many were successful. [113371]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food(Ms Joyce Quin): The scheme was designed to support farmers and growers to improve marketing and 161 projects were put forward. We were pleased to make 47 awards of grant totalling £2 million to the best of them. Partly because of the interest shown, we intend to make new marketing awards available later this year under the rural development plan.

Mr. Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The scheme is imaginative and makes a big difference. That contrasts with the Opposition, who

presided over a crisis when they were in government. What are her proposals for taking the scheme forward in other farming sectors?

Ms Quin: We are keen to take the scheme forward and believe that the rural development plan is by far the best way to do so. The scheme has provided support to sectors that are ineligible for other assistance and, for that reason, I am glad that the pig industry has received a substantial proportion of the awards that have been made. I am also glad that awards in the dairy sector go hand in hand with other initiatives that we are taking, such as facilitating the generic promotion and advertising of milk.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the House welcomes any help with marketing that farmers can receive, but is not the biggest problem with all these schemes the fact that, having invested their money in marketing excellent British products, farmers often cannot label them to show where they are from? The Government made sure that the Food Labelling Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) was talked out on Friday last. Having established excellent schemes, surely the Bill represents a way of ensuring that farmers can use such labelling.

Ms Quin: I contest strongly the allegation that we talked out a Bill—given that the promoter, the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), spoke for one and a quarter hours but I was allowed only 12 minutes to respond to the huge number of points that were raised. The Government had already made clear their view of the Bill. The Bill's substance was incompatible with European law. As the promoter was arguing for European Union aid, it seemed foolish to pass a Bill in clear contravention of EU law. This Government have been much more active on labelling issues than the previous Government. The action that we have taken domestically in MAFF and with trading standards officers and our initiatives to change the labelling regime within the European Union bear ample testimony to that claim.

Organic Farming

Ms Julia Drown: What recent assessment he has made of the environmental advantages of organic farming. [113372]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food(Mr. Elliot Morley): Evaluation of the environmental impact of organic farming is one of the three main objectives of the Ministry's organic research and development programme. For example, studies on biodiversity, soil fertility and nutrient cycling are in progress. Earlier work has indicated that organic farming has a positive effect on biodiversity.

Ms Drown: Given that the demand for organic food continues to rise rapidly and we are still importing 70 per cent. of the organic produce sold, will the Minister further increase the amount of Government support for farmers who wish to convert to organic farming methods, and set clear targets for the proportion of land that could be farmed organically, to reflect consumer demand,


the environmental advantages of organic farming and the Government's desire to promote sustainable farming methods?

Mr. Morley: I can certainly give my hon. Friend an assurance that the Government are committed to providing more support for organic conversion. We are committing £149 million in the rural development programme over the next seven years to assist farmers who want to convert. I understand my hon. Friend's points about targets. I was pleased to meet the promoter of a private Member's Bill on this matter, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). Although the Government have concerns about the potential effects of targets, which can be negative as well as positive, there is no doubt that the Government and the Bill's sponsors have in common the objective of promoting and increasing organic conversion.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): Organic farming may have some environmental advantages and be a great talking point for Labour luvvies round Islington dinner tables, but it is not the answer to the deepest crisis that has hit British farming for 60 years. We need long-term solutions but also short-term solutions for farmers such as those who lobbied Ministers yesterday, and those at a dairy farm in my constituency that I visited on Sunday. If all farmers transferred to organics, the price depression that has hit regular farming would also hit organics. May we have some decent and honest answers to the crisis hitting farmers now?

Mr. Morley: When one hears comments such as that, one can understand why organic farming got virtually nowhere under the previous Government. No one is pretending that organic farming is the answer to all aspects of agriculture. However, we want our farmers to have a share of the huge demand for organic products. To refer to the many farmers who have converted and the many more who are queueing up to convert as Islington Labour luvvies is an insult to the people who are trying to maximise their business.

Hill Farmers

Helen Jackson: What assistance he has provided to hill farmers in the past two years. [113373]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): Hill farms received £600 million to £700 million in total in livestock headage payments last year. A significant proportion of the £235 million purchase costs under the over-30-months scheme and various sums under other schemes, including for environmentally sensitive areas, also went to hill farmers.

Helen Jackson: I repeat the welcome that I gave to the Government policy of putting environmental schemes at the heart of their grant programmes for hill farming and other purposes, because that will improve the countryside in hilly areas. Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, often, hill farming is not big business? Do not small businesses need greater simplicity built into

countryside stewardship schemes so that smaller applications, as well as larger integrated projects, are also given favourable treatment?

Ms Quin: I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in hill areas, especially those in her part of the country. I accept the validity of what she said about the size of hill farms and their present circumstances, but we believe that our approach is right. In particular, the review of red tape that we have undertaken, and our keenness to simplify the advice system, will help to meet her requests.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: What, in the Minister's view, is the future for hill farmers—bright or gloomy?

Ms Quin: The Government recognise the role that hill farmers play in agriculture, and the economic, environmental and social aspects of hill farming. We believe that our rural development plan, and developing the second pillar of the common agricultural policy, will help hill farmers, because those measures recognise their multi-functional role. Hill farmers have an environmental role, and are also an important part of the social fabric of the countryside.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: One of the things that sicken me about the whole question of subsidies from the Common Market is that, according to research and calculations over the past 12 months, 80 per cent. of subsidies went to 20 per cent. of farms—the conglomerates—whereas only 20 per cent. ended up with the hill farmers and the rest. We never hear the Tories talk about subsidies of that kind. I propose that we start dividing the subsidies more equally, and stop the fat cats from getting them.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington): Such as Livingstone.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, including him.
We should have a pesticide tax on the millionaire conglomerates that are getting the subsidies. Once we start the process, we shall manage to solve some of the problems.

Ms Quin: I firmly believe that the existing common agricultural policy provides support in an inefficient way—a way that distorts markets, helps some sectors but not others and is backward-looking rather than forward-looking. That is why the Government have adopted a rural development approach rather than the backward-looking traditional common agricultural policy approach.

Pig Farming

Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent representations he has received on the state of pig farming; and if he will make a statement. [113374]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): Ministers have received a number of representations. I am pleased to see a strengthening of the producer price for pigs over recent weeks, although I realise that it is not yet at the level that many producers


require. I attribute the rise, at least in part, to measures taken by the Government and the Meat and Livestock Commission. Nevertheless, we continue to examine possible ways of helping the sector.

Miss McIntosh: When will the Government stop telling porkies to the pig farmers? Will the Minister tell us what progress, if any, the Government have made in regard to an application for state aid for those farmers? Does he accept that there is a BSE-equivalent tax of £5.26 per pig on each pig farm, and will he make good the promise given by the Prime Minister both at the NFU conference and on his west country tour that compensation for the tax would be paid?

Mr. Brown: As I have said, the Government are exploring what more we can do to help the industry. I have been as up-front and candid as any Minister has ever been in tackling the problems. Every suggestion that has been made to me—by Members in all parts of the House—has been considered and, where we have been able to help, we have helped. We have taken a number of steps, such as writing to public sector purchasing bodies, writing to local authorities, and reviewing the labelling regime—a subject that Conservative Members raised earlier. If it was deficient, they had 18 years in which to remedy it, but they did absolutely nothing.
The Opposition are calling for a state aid that they know cannot be paid. We are exploring what can be done, but the request for the European Union to buy out the offal disposal costs that were imposed on the industry by the last Conservative Government in 1996 is not a runner.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington): When I met farmers from Cumbria yesterday, they were discussing the problems in the pig, meat and milk industries in the county. I told them that my view was that, when we join the euro, many of the problems will be resolved. If my right hon. Friend had been sitting at the meeting with me, would he have been shaking his head or nodding in agreement?

Mr. Brown: It is true that the current exchange rate between sterling and the euro exacerbates the problem of supply and demand in the single market.

Mr. William Thompson: Has the Minister had the opportunity to study the report from the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs on the livestock industry in Northern Ireland, which highlights the tremendous problems that farmers have there, especially pig farmers? More than half of them have gone out of business and the rest are up to their ears in debt. Will he consider not only that report, but the fact that the pig breeding herd has gone down by more than 40 per cent? Will he examine the document carefully, take it to heart and, above all, expeditiously accept and act on its recommendations?

Mr. BrownM: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his efforts in this place to raise the problems of pig farmers in Northern Ireland with UK Ministers. There is a crisis in the sector throughout the European Union. It is particularly severe in the UK. Within the UK, it is particularly severe in Northern Ireland. He is right to

remind us of that. I will study the report and see what more I can do to help farmers in the UK and especially in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Why does Labour care so little about Britain's pig farmers that it talked out the Bill that would have let consumers know whether the bacon that they were buying was British or not? Why does Labour care so little that it took the Minister four months and much Conservative prompting even to send letters to public authorities asking them to buy from suppliers who meet British standards? Why does Labour care so little that it will not even ask the European Commission about helping Britain's pig farmers to pay for public health measures, as Belgian farmers were helped last summer? Commissioner Fischler has confirmed to many Conservatives that that could be done for Britain.

Mr. Brown: You have had to listen to that offensive nonsense from Conservative Front Benchers at a number of Agriculture questions, Madam Speaker. Each and every one of the hon. Gentleman's questions has been answered before. If he cared so much about the labelling regime, he would have done something about it in the 18 years that he was in government. The present Government care so much that we have addressed the issue by issuing new guidelines to trading standards officers, who enforce the law. It is not a polite request from the Government. It is a requirement. That law is to be enforced.

Mr. Yeo: If the Minister were a little more honest about his analysis of what has happened—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that remark. We cannot have that.

Mr. Yeo: I withdraw the implication that the Minister has not been honest.

Madam Speaker: Order. I asked the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the remark.

Mr. Yeo: I withdraw my remark about the Minister's honesty.

Madam Speaker: Good, now begin again.

Mr. Yeo: If the Minister analysed what happened in the 18 years before he took office, he would know that at no stage were British pig farmers losing money by as much and going out of business as rapidly as they are now. I asked him three simple questions. The fact is that, unfortunately, we know the answer. Two Fridays ago, the Minister of State talked out the Food Labelling Bill. It took four months and a lot of prompting from me and my colleagues for the Minister even to send the letters, when he told the House that they were ready to go at the beginning of July last year. We have confirmation in writing from Commissioner Fischler that he would be willing to find a way in which to make payments to meet the public health costs that are crippling Britain's pig farmers, and the Minister will not even go to Brussels and discuss it.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are both offensive and disingenuous. The Commission is not


willing to support a subsidy scheme for offal disposal costs. It might be willing to consider a restructuring scheme similar to the one that it agreed for Belgium, but that would not keep the industry going. It would effectively downsize it.

Organic Farming

Mr. Peter Bradley (The Wrekin): If he will make a statement on the rate of growth in organic production in the last three years. [113375]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): Organic farming has undergone a rapid expansion in the past three years. The area of land in the United Kingdom, both in conversion and fully organic, has increased from just under 50,000 hectares in December 1996, just before the Government came to office, to an estimated 540,000 hectares in November 1999.

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer and for the action that the Government are taking to support organic farming. That action is in stark contrast to the gratuitous insults offered by Conservative Members to consumers of organic products—whose money is as good as anyone else's, particularly when it is going into the pockets of British farmers. I should have thought that point would not be lost on Conservative Members, but apparently it is.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that support is necessary for conversion to organic farming, as it is for new research into food products, for helping farmers to exercise greater control over the food-processing chain and for marketing? Does she agree that, if the Government's objectives are to be met, it is very important that when innovative projects arise, as they have in my constituency, the Government and their agencies, including the regional development agencies, should do all that they can to move as quickly as possible to ensure that ideas get off the drawing board and on to farms as quickly as possible, to offer the relief to farmers that we all want to get to them?

Ms Quin: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. We are very keen to work with farmers who wish to go organic. I certainly recognise the interest that my hon. Friend has taken in schemes launched in his own constituency. He also makes a good point when he speaks of the need to link our priorities for organic farming and those for the future of agriculture with regional development initiatives. We are very keen to ensure that regional development agencies, when they are examining the economic potential of their region, take full account of the agricultural and rural sector. That must include growth and expansion in organic farming.

Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton): I welcome the growth in organic production in the United Kingdom, especially in milk. However, does the right hon. Lady recognise that, although grant aid is extremely welcome, it is limited, and that many milk producers, particularly in Cheshire, who might like to convert to organic milk production to obtain the premium price, will not be able to do so? They cannot convert not least because the

industry is in crisis—and to convert, farmers have to be sound financially. What advice can she give to those farmers?

Ms Quin: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already spoken of the huge increase—a tenfold increase—in financial support to the organic sector that has occurred under this Government. I note that although Conservative Members keep calling for an increase in that money, there seems to be a lot of amnesia on their part, given the very small sums that they provided and the very little interest that they took in the organic sector when they were in office. I encourage the farmers in the hon. Lady's constituency and others who are interested in these schemes to consider aspects of the rural development plan. Although money is specifically earmarked for organics, farmers should also be considering other relevant schemes.

Joan Ruddock: People in my inner-city constituency want to eat organic foods because of its quality. She will be aware that in 1998, on the advice of the chief medical officer, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave advice to the public on peeling and cleaning fruit and vegetables that had been conventionally grown, because of variable levels of pesticide residue. Will she confirm that advice is still in force? Has she had any reason whatever to refer to the chief medical officer any consideration of problems with human health caused by the consumption of organic food, or to seek advice from him on any such problem?

Ms Quin: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work in promoting the benefits of organic food. She has consistently drawn attention to the potential of the organic sector. There is increasing recognition of the health benefits of organic food. I am not aware of any substantial change in the advice, but I shall write to my hon. Friend about the current situation and place a copy of the letter in the Library. I assure her that the Government take her general concerns about the organic sector very much to heart.

Mr. John Bercow: What assessment has the right hon. Lady made of the impact of the backlog in applications for organic conversion grants on Britain's balance of trade in organic products, notwithstanding the important and worthwhile points that she has just made? Does she accept that one of the inevitable effects of the cessation of grants for 18 months is to enable foreign producers and competitors to strengthen their stranglehold on the British market?

Ms Quin: We allocated £10 million specifically to tackle the backlog that the hon. Gentleman mentions. We were motivated not just by the importance of expanding the organic sector for its own sake and its economic potential, but because we were aware of how much organic produce was imported and how beneficial it would be to UK agriculture if our producers were able to replace much of that imported produce. That is one of the factors behind the dramatic expansion of organics that has taken place under this Government.

Livestock Farmers

Mr. Huw Edwards: What plans he has to apply for agrimonetary compensation for livestock farmers. [113377]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): A total of £397 million in agrimonetary compensation has already been paid over the past 3 years, of which £227 million has gone to beef and sheep farmers. Up to £132 million will be paid this year and next, of which £93 million will be to beef and sheep farmers. No decision has yet been made on whether to pay further compensation.

Mr. Edwards: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the high level of sterling partly reflects the Government's sound management of the economy, but that it is greatly disadvantaging the farming community, for whom agrimonetary compensation is one of the key measures that could help in the present crisis? Will my right hon. Friend work with the Prime Minister and Ministers at the Treasury and do all that he can to maximise the amount of agrimonetary compensation that can be paid to UK farmers?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right to point to the reasons why the policy instruments are in place. His remarks highlight why the Government have already made such extensive use of them. I cannot announce any further extension today of the use that the Government are making of the agrimonetary regime. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we are keeping the issue under review.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I fully support the request made by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards). I met the Macclesfield and district branch of the National Farmers Union on Saturday morning in an extremely well-attended but very sober three-hour meeting. Throughout my time in the House, I have never known livestock farmers to be more depressed. Will the Minister take seriously his hon. Friend's request, which is endorsed in all parties, that agrimonetary compensation should be used to the maximum to help British farmers to overcome a uniquely serious crisis? I make a special plea from the Conservative Benches. Will he and the Prime Minister please respond?

Mr. Brown: The Prime Minister has very carefully not closed the door on making further use of that instrument, of which we have already made extensive use. My meetings with farmers, particularly livestock farmers, have exactly the character that the hon. Gentleman described. He is right to say that the livestock sector is going through difficult times. There are particular problems in the dairy sector, but the agrimonetary regime alone does not provide sufficient money to deal with those current difficulties.

Mr. Simon Thomas: Notwithstanding those comments, does the Minister accept that his Government have made less use of the agrimonetary compensation scheme than have other European Governments, and that there is an opportunity to make

greater use of it? If the problem is the Fontainebleau agreement, negotiated by the previous Government, does he accept that that should not stand in the way of helping some of the most deprived rural areas, such as my constituency where farm incomes have fallen by nearly 140 per cent. in the last year?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right to make the case for his constituency, but I do not accept what he says about the relative use of the agrimonetary regime. As he correctly points out, we are constrained by the Fontainebleau agreement, negotiated by the last Conservative Government. I can say confidently to the House that we are making more use of the compensatory regime for farmers than the last Government did, because they did not draw down a single penny.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Ministerial Meetings

Dr. Brian Iddon: How often the Law Officers meet their counterparts from other countries. [113398]

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The Attorney-General and I frequently meet our counterparts from other countries, on a bilateral basis and at meetings and conferences. Attorneys-General and Solicitors-General from countries in the Commonwealth and beyond regularly call on us when they are in the UK.
In addition, the Attorney-General and I from time to time represent Her Majesty's Government at meetings and conferences in the UK and elsewhere. In May, the Attorney-General will host a conference in London of presidents of the Supreme Courts and Attorneys-General of the member states of the EU. Later this month, the Attorney-General will attend a conference of Attorneys of the UK overseas territories.

Dr. Iddon: It seems that as the borders come down, we make it much easier for criminals to ply their trades—for example, trafficking drugs. Is it not important that we stay one step ahead of the criminals? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that there is room for more co-operation between the criminal justice and criminal intelligence systems across Europe?

The Solicitor-General: I know that the trade in hard drugs has had serious ramifications in my hon. Friend's constituency. There is always scope for more co-operation, and the Government are dedicated to improving that. At an operational level, the co-operation involves mainly the police and Customs and Excise. As regards the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office, co-operation is crucial and occurs at the level of mutual legal assistance and the provision of evidence. The SFO plays an important role in respect of international fraud.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: When the Law Officers meet their counterparts from other countries, do they talk about the administration of local justice? Is the Minister aware of the growing concern about the closure of magistrates courts in rural areas? What will the Government do about it?

The Solicitor-General: It is a bold move from international matters to magistrates courts. Certainly, we can learn from other countries about local justice and how it is administered. That matter has featured from time to time on the agendas of those meetings.

Mr. David Kidney: Given highly mobile capital flows and sophisticated information and communications technology, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is essential for law enforcement agencies to work together internationally to detect and deter serious financial crime, such as money laundering, market manipulation and scams?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The SFO is concerned about international fraud. These days, in such centres as London, fraud is almost by definition international, and the SFO is active in this regard. Money laundering is on the agenda for improvement of the law. The SFO pursues international fraud in other ways, and sometimes comes up against barriers in other countries. Sometimes we find it difficult to get the necessary evidence to prosecute in this country. However, I agree with my hon. Friend.

EU Law

Miss Anne McIntosh: What discussions he has held with the European Commission on matters relating to European Community law. [113401]

The Solicitor-General: I have held no discussions with the European Commission on matters relating to European Community law. However, Government Departments have regular discussions with the Commission on such matters, and I am aware of those discussions. In particular cases, I am asked for legal advice in relation to them. I have also been involved in litigation before the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

Miss McIntosh: I thank the Solicitor-General for that reply. In the context of the intergovernmental conference negotiations, can he give the House an undertaking that criminal law will not form part of the competence of the EU and will remain the jurisdiction and preserve of the national legal systems of England, Wales and Scotland?

The Solicitor-General: Criminal law falls within the competence of member states and will continue to do so. There is scope for co-operation between prosecuting agencies and we have said that we will further that. However, in relation to the wider issue, criminal law remains—as far as we are concerned—a matter for individual states.

Mr. John Burnett: Does the Solicitor-General have discussions with the European Commission on matters such as legal procedure? Does he believe that cases such as the European Commission v. France, on the ban on British beef, take far too long to resolve? Does he believe that any damages from such proceedings should accrue to those who have suffered—in that case, the hard-pressed British farmer?

The Solicitor-General: There is a case for the procedure of the European Court of Justice to be more flexible and, at present, there is a considerable backlog. On the particular issue of beef, the approach of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was right, and I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would know from experience that it is better to try to effect a non-legal solution than a legal solution. However, the non-legal solution failed, so the Commission began proceedings. We believe that it has a watertight case because freedom of movement is a fundamental aspect of the treaty, and in that sphere member states have no competence because the European Union has taken measures that pre-empt that competence. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and hon. Friends acted impeccably in the matter.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Solicitor-General recognise that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), in which he said that he had no such meetings or discussions, will be greeted with astonishment well beyond the House? Does he recognise that that is indicative of the supine attitude that the Government have adopted to every pronouncement of Mr. Prodi, Commissioner Kinnock and their ilk? If the Government will not stand up for British sovereignty in beating off the attempt to impose Napoleonic law and corpus iuris, the Opposition must do it, and we shall wish to put pressure on the Commission. I hope that the Solicitor-General will recognise that we will continue to press him and his colleagues and ensure that they are encouraged to fight for Britain.

The Solicitor-General: I am sure that the European Commission will be quaking in its boots after that. I have set out the position clearly. Discussions continue day to day, but they are the responsibility of the policy departments to which we provide legal advice.

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Tom Levitt: What steps he is taking to make the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service more accessible to people with hearing impairments. [113403]

The Solicitor-General: The CPS is committed to equality of access to justice, and that includes equality in its day-to-day dealings with others in the criminal justice system, including defendants, victims and witnesses. Together with others from other criminal justice agencies, the CPS works closely with representatives of associations


involved with deaf people or those who are hard of hearing to ensure that their needs are addressed. The CPS is aware of its responsibilities under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and is a user of the Employment Service's "Positive About Disabled People" symbol. It has a programme of action on disability and has a network of equal opportunities officers.

Mr. Levitt: I greatly welcome that reply. I speak as someone who, some five years ago, wrote a book on how deaf people can better access public services. When I heard that the CPS was interested, I sent it a copy, so it has the book to help it.
Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there are essentially four ways in which deaf people can be helped to have better access to those services—text telephones, sound enhancement, sign language where appropriate and, above all, through the general awareness of front-line staff of the communication needs of people with hearing impairments? Which measures does he contemplate using in the CPS to enhance that access to services?

The Solicitor-General: I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on his book "Sound Practice", which has been used widely in Government agencies, including the CPS.
The CPS subscribes to TypeTalk, which provides a link between hearing or speech-impaired telephone users and hearing persons. My hon. Friend mentioned awareness, and training is one aspect of that. The CPS official responsible for interpreter issues is at present undergoing training in British sign language, stage 2. In addition, training on the victims pilots, about which I have spoken in the past, includes disability awareness training. That training includes awareness of the problems faced by the deaf and hard of hearing.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: How can the CPS facilities be made more available to people with hearing impairment? Local CPS offices are being closed, and their facilities moved further away from people. The same is happening with magistrates courts and their administrative offices. Is that the way to make the operations of the CPS more accessible to people with disabilities, especially those with hearing impairment?

The Solicitor-General: I am surprised by those comments. To my knowledge, no CPS offices have been closed. The CPS is getting out into the community, through the criminal justice units, and CPS officials now attend regularly at police stations.
We accept that deaf and hard of hearing people face problems. For example, the design of courts can render lip-reading difficult. We must be much more aware of the problems faced by defendants, victims and witnesses, but there is no substance to the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Charities Litigation

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: If he will make a statement on the grounds on which Law Officers intervene in charities litigation. [113404]

The Solicitor-General: The Attorney-General's function in relation to charities is to represent the Crown and so to act as protector, both of charity in general and of particular charities.
It falls to the Attorney-General and to me to institute legal proceedings to protect a charity and to represent the charitable interest. The Attorney-General is also a necessary party to any litigation in which the objects of a charity need to be separately represented—for example, where the interest of the trustees do not coincide with the object of the charity.

Mrs. Gilroy: Will my hon. and learned Friend explain what happens if a gift is willed to a charity called Cancer Research, when no charity exists under that name?

The Solicitor-General: There is a provision under which the sovereign, acting under the sign manual, can allocate moneys in such a case as that. That power has now been delegated to the Attorney-General and to me. If there is a general charitable interest such as cancer research, the Attorney-General or I can assign the moneys to charities with that interest. That is a very valuable power, and it is used regularly. People often will money to a general charitable interest such as cancer research, or to charities that no longer exist. If a general charitable intent can be found, we will allocate the money to an interest close to the original interest of the testator.

Mr. John Bercow: Is the Solicitor-General aware that his initial answer and his answer to the supplementary question from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) were both very self-contained and intelligible only to a tiny minority of persons with a particular interest in a given case? For the general enlightenment of right hon. and hon. Members, would the hon. and learned Gentleman care to tell us in how many cases, either specifically or roughly, during the period in which he has held office Law Officers have had reason to intervene in charities litigation matters?

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry that the answer went over the hon. Gentleman's head. We intervene on a regular basis. For example, last week I appeared in the Court of Appeal in an important charitable case which will, I think, set the law for the future. It is a regular aspect of our work, involving, for instance, telling my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) how the testator's intention can be affected. It also involves, in some cases, important and large charities.

Business of the House

Sir George Young: Could I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 20 MARCH—Second Reading of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. 
TUESDAY 21 MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget Statement. 
WEDNESDAY 22 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate. 
THURSDAY 23 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate. 
FRIDAY 24 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 27 MARcH—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
TUESDAY 28 MARCH—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill.
WEDNESDAY 29 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill.
THURSDAY 30 MARCH—Second Reading of the Learning and Skills Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 31 MARCH—The House will not be sitting.
The House will wish to know that on Wednesday 29 March, there will be a debate on the aid system for flax and hemp in European Standing Committee A.

Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and an indication of the business for the following week. Will the Leader of the House reflect on the amount of time that she has allocated to the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill? There will be some important Government amendments on the state second pension, following some confusion in Committee. Any changes in the Child Support Agency are of interest to a large number of right hon. and hon. Members, as are the controversial benefit changes in the Bill, not to mention the Prime Minister's announcement today of a new agency that will impact on the Benefits Agency. It seems that just one day to deal with all that is inadequate unless it is to be a very long day.
The Upper House has debated the Wakeham report, but there is still no sign of progress down this end of the building. Last week, the right hon. Lady said that she was giving priority to Government Bills. However, Members of Parliament need a balanced diet, with light debates on Wakeham, the intergovernmental conference and the Liaison Committee between her heavy, indigestible Bills.
On Rover, can the right hon. Lady undertake that the House will be kept in the picture next week if there are any important developments? Can we have a statement next week on the precise role in the Government of Lord Levy, as it is shrouded in mystery?
Finally, can the right hon. Lady deny what was reported in The Times on Monday about her plans to curtail debate in the Chamber? The article says:
Ministers are threatening an unprecedented curb on Commons debating time amid fears that they may fail to force all their Bills through before the end of the parliamentary session.
The proposal to timetable all business on the floor of the chamber has been raised by the Government's business managers.
I hope that the right hon. Lady will be able to deny that. Last night, not only Conservative but Labour and Liberal Democrat Members resented the inadequate time available on the remaining stages of the Terrorism Bill. Will the right hon. Lady admit that the programme is too large to be manageable and that some of the Bills, such as the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial Bill), should be dropped?

Mrs. Beckett: First, the right hon. Gentleman asks me to reflect on the time allotted for the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, and of course I will do so, although the business for the second week is always provisional. If, as he says, a number of issues need to be aired, there may be much to be said for having proper programme motions so that we can be confident of having time to air the issues in which right hon. and hon. Members are particularly interested. On Monday and Tuesday, the right hon. Gentleman's side took a sensible approach, for which we were grateful, and we got through our business efficiently and effectively with all hon. Members feeling that they had had an opportunity to air their concerns.

Mr. Eric Forth: Really?

Mrs. Beckett: We cannot take two days for everything.

Mr. Forth: Why not?

Mrs. Beckett: Because there is not enough parliamentary time.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) asked next about a debate on the Lords. I understand his wish for a balanced diet, but he must appreciate that every Government's priority is their legislative programme. Since we have not been having programme motions, several Bills have taken more time than was allotted—or, indeed, originally asked for. Consequently, we are anxious to ensure that our Bills have proper priority.
I give the right hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he sought on the House being kept informed about Rover. On Lord Levy, I understand that the Prime Minister has answered questions about that matter. The right hon. Gentleman asked finally about a newspaper report—I cannot recall whether he said what paper it appeared in—

Sir George Young: The Times.

Mrs. Beckett: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. The report was about Government business managers having discussions. It is completely untrue to say that there is not enough time for the Government's programme. Our programme is challenging, but there is certainly enough time, provided that the House deals with its business efficiently and effectively.
The right hon. Gentleman will find the fact increasingly appearing in biographies of me, I am pleased to say, that I am not one of those politicians who make their way through cultivating the press. I do not leak stories to the press. Anything that has appeared under any byline about my intentions or discussions with business managers has no authority behind it. It comes neither from my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, nor from me.

Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend may have read early-day motion 439 on deaths from asbestos-related diseases:
[That this House regrets to learn of the death of Sidney Dalton due to mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos whilst working at the former Blackburn Meadows Power Station; calls for a public inquiry into the high incidence of asbestos-related disease amongst former power industry workers; deplores the conduct of his employers Powergen plc in forcing former employees or their widows to take their cases for compensation to the High Court; and reminds the company that under the Electricity Act 1989 they were required to take over liabilities and not just the assets of the former Electricity Generating Board, and that accordingly they have a duty to compensate former workers who have suffered asbestos-related disease.]
She may also have read early-day motion 440, which draws attention to international repetitive strain injury awareness day. She will be aware of the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs on the Health and Safety Executive, and she may be aware that the Health and Safety Commission will reply, over the next week or so, to the consultation exercise carried out last year. Following that publication, will she endeavour to make time for a debate on health and safety, an important matter in a changing world, and an issue badly neglected by the Opposition during their 18-year Administration?

Mrs. Beckett: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's point, and I understand concern across the House about health and safety matters. As I have just said to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for a special debate, particularly as my hon. Friend has identified a wide range of issues. I recommend to him the debates in Westminster Hall.

Mr. Paul Tyler: In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) yesterday, the Prime Minister laid great stress on the importance of the farming summit that he is convening at 10 Downing street on 30 March. Can the Leader of the House give an absolute assurance that there will, as soon as possible after that event—we are getting close to it—be a statement by the Prime Minister or a debate in Government time on the crisis in agriculture?
The shadow Leader of the House referred to the huge amount of business to be undertaken on Wednesday 29 March. May I suggest a means by which we could relieve the pressure? If, instead of trailing announcements about the proposed merger of the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service on the "Today" programme or sneaking out a written answer at the end of Thursday, the Government made a proper statement in the House,

we could have a proper discussion and hold Ministers to account. Given that the Prime Minister himself—according to the "Today" programme—thought the matter so important that he had to make the announcement himself, why is he not making it to the House?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: You don't have to believe everything John Humphrys says.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. One does not have to believe all that John Humphrys says. [HON. MEMBERS: "Don't you?"] That is no criticism, but a statement of fact which, I am sure, John Humphrys would be the first to endorse.
I undertake that the House will be kept informed about the outcome of the farming summit. The Government recognise its great importance to the industry and to many hon. Members on both sides. I cannot undertake that the statement will be made by the Prime Minister, but the House will be kept informed.
The hon. Gentleman referred to matters being trailed on the "Today" programme and asked for a statement in the House. There is always a balance to be struck on how the public and the House are informed. He will be aware that, as Madam Speaker has pointed out in the past, the Government can make announcements to the House through written parliamentary answers. There is nothing unparliamentary about that. Of course, I understand the pressure and the desire for more statements, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have already made far more statements than did our predecessors over a similar period. If we continue to have demands for statements on everything, there will not be time for the debates that hon. Members are calling for.

Mrs. Ann Cryer: Would my right hon. Friend consider a debate on residential care for people with a mental handicap and the problems raised for devoted relatives by the complete lack of choice in many areas? The matter is set out in my early-day motion 517 on residential village communities:
[That this House welcomes the strengthened guidance given to health and local authorities last July (HSC 1999/162: LAC (99)28) confirming the rights of people with a mental handicap and their families to make informed choices about residential and other placements, but is concerned that evidence presented to an NHS conference on 28th January indicated that by a ratio of over two to one families claimed they were not being allowed the choice to which this Government is committed; and therefore urges the Government to adopt effective measures quickly to ensure that family choices, including the choice of village-type residential communities, preferred by many families are properly respected by local health and social service authorities and that more serious consideration is given to the evolution of such village communities, as argued for in, Made to Care, by the noble Baroness, Baroness Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch.]

Mrs. Beckett: I take heed of the concern aired by my hon. Friend. There are local complaints procedures, if there is unhappiness. However, I take my hon. Friend's point that there is not the range of choice for people with


such disabilities that one might want. I shall certainly draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I know that you, Madam Speaker, are aware of the real anger in the livestock industry about the failure of the Government to pay agrimonetary compensation up to the maximum allowed. However, you may not be aware that the Agriculture Commissioner, Franz Fischler, has recently stated that the UK is the only country in the European Union that is not paying up to the maximum allowed under the legislation. May we have an early debate so that the Minister of Agriculture can come to the House and explain why the Government are so resolute in refusing to increase those amounts to the maximum allowed? Instead of giving us excuses for his failure, can he give us some reasons for continuing to sell the farmers short?

Mrs. Beckett: I am confident that if the hon. Gentleman casts his mind back he will understand the reasons very well. As I understand the matter—from memory—it was part of the package negotiated at Fontainebleau by the former Prime Minister, now Lady Thatcher, when she decided not to participate in that scheme.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Would the Leader of the House consider giving us an early full-day debate on the Select Committee on Liaison report, "Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive"? There is a carrot for my right hon. Friend in granting the debate, because if that report is implemented by the Government, it will be her enduring legacy to Parliament. It will be much more important than the botch of the House of Lords reform, the introduction of the parallel Chamber, or Thursday sittings that end at 7 o'clock. Shifting the balance away from the Executive back to this place so that Back Benchers can control the Executive will be an enduring legacy. To hold such a debate would be a huge step forward. Will my right hon. Friend do all she can to advance that major constitutional reform?

Mrs. Beckett: I am touched by my hon. Friend's regard for my place in history. However, I fear that I am much more interested in what works effectively for better governance of the country than I am in my own track record or in how I am perceived.

Mr. Charles Wardle: The Leader of the House will be familiar with the draft strategy, "A way with waste", produced by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Ministers suggested that it would emerge in its final form early this year. Will she tell the House when that strategy will be finalised? Will she arrange a debate so that public concern about pollution and contamination from incineration plants, such as might affect the residents of Mountfield in my constituency, can be fully explored?

Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the subject in the near future, although I remind the hon. Gentleman of the 200 extra

opportunities for debate that are offered by the proceedings in Westminster Hall. He will also have observed that Environment questions are scheduled soon and he might like to use that opportunity.

Mr. David Winnick: A statement will no doubt be made next week, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee on the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), which has been debated in the House, and yesterday's report on the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) demonstrate that, at long last, Members' outside financial interests are being properly investigated? I emphasise the words "at long last", and I speak as a Member with 25 years' experience in the House.
Is there any reason at all why the annual tax returns of Members are not given to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards? If we have nothing to hide—I know that Conservative Members will object to the suggestion—why should the Parliamentary Commissioner not see our annual tax returns?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point about the proper handling of our financial interests. The whole House has agreed to the way in which we handle such matters so as to make it clear that we pay high regard to our reputation and standing with the public. He made an interesting suggestion about tax returns, but I freely confess to him that, although he has made a serious point that should be carefully considered, many Members struggle to meet the new arrangements that have been made for the declaration of tax and the early filling in of forms. Certainly, I have never found it easy to make sure that I get all the information together in time to meet the deadlines, so the idea of having to meet the Parliamentary Commissioner's deadline as well is something to which I would wish to give a little careful thought.

Mr. Michael Jack: I was disappointed with the response of the Leader of the House to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who raised with her the handling of this morning's lead news item on the amalgamation of the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service. The Leader of the House has a crucial job in protecting Parliament's interest in discussing important business. Will she tell us specifically why that business does not merit a statement today or a statement or debate next week? We have been told that the change is one of the most significant to the way in which benefits will be dealt with in future, yet so far she has offered the House no chance to discuss it.

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong, I am afraid. I did not hear the report to which he referred, so I genuinely do not know whether I have sympathy for his complaint or whether I think that—and this is a sort of compliment—it is one of the bogus points frequently made by Conservative Members in pursuit of advancement of their political cause. [HON. MEMBERS: "Unfair."' That is not a criticism, because they obviously think that that is their job.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there should be a special statement. He will have observed that there is the opportunity for debate. When Members have had a chance


to consider whatever is being said, no doubt they will know whether the issue is one that they can legitimately raise in the debate and will seek opportunities to do so. However, we cannot make statements on everything that comes to mind.

Angela Smith: My right hon. Friend may recall a lengthy and fascinating debate that we had in the House on 19 January on the Representation of the People Act 2000, including a rivetting discussion of about an hour on the meaning of the word "and" in legislation. Because of that, we could not, on that occasion, debate on the Floor of the House the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. My right hon. Friend made a statement and promised that she would bring the Bill back to the House as soon as possible. When is that likely to be and what plans has she to bring the Bill back to the House as soon as possible?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Although she may be completely right, I must admit that I do not recall using the precise words "as soon as possible". I am always a little cautious, knowing that sometimes other things intervene in the scheduling of business. However, her underlying point is absolutely right and was strongly made. The procedures of the House were used to make sure that we did not reach the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. I gave the House the undertaking that we expected the Bill to come before the House and, I hope, pass into law. That remains my view, although I cannot give my hon. Friend a date for that at present.

Rev. Martin Smyth: We understand that the Government have to get their business through and we know from experience that Governments of both persuasions have made many blunders in trying to push business through the House and wasted more time later on. When we ask to debate certain subjects, it is a ploy of those on the Government Front Bench to tell the Opposition parties that they can use their Supply days. May I therefore plead with the Leader of the House to use her influence with the usual channels to grant a half-day Supply day to the Ulster Unionist party? It is four years since we had one, we are trying to get one and I trust that it will not be towards the end of the Session before that happens.

Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to learn of the hon. Gentleman's concerns. He clearly appreciates that this is not a matter for me directly, but I am confident that his observations will have been heard on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Phil Hope: May I ask my right hon. Friend for an early debate on the future of the BBC World Service? It has now achieved a record 151 million listeners worldwide, reaching more than 100 cities across the globe, and its information and education work reaches some of the poorest communities in the world. I would welcome an early debate on its future.

Mrs. Beckett: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. One of the more unfortunate features of the Conservatives' record in government was that they cut the funding for the World Service, which has always seemed

to me to be not only a huge cultural but a huge economic asset to the country, so I thought that the cut in funding was an act of extraordinary folly. I entirely agree that the House should welcome, as I think it does, the improvement in the World Service and the additional funding that the Government have made available. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for an early debate on the Floor of the House, but I recommend to him the attractions of Westminster Hall.

Dr. Julian Lewis: According to one of the many best-selling biographies of the Leader of the House, she was a distinguished member of the Labour common market safeguards committee. She will therefore appreciate the significance of yesterday's statement by the European Commissioner in charge of economic and monetary union, Mr. Pedro Solbes, who stated:
In the longer term it's not possible to be in the Union and outside EMU.
Will she find time for an early statement by the Foreign Secretary about those blackmailing tactics by unelected Commission officials, particularly in the light of the statement last October by the President of the Commission, Mr. Prodi, that the European Commission is in reality the Government of Europe?

Mrs. Beckett: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I must slightly correct him: I do not think that there have been any biographies of me, but there are various biographical summaries of varying accuracy. They are correct in identifying that I was a member of the common market safeguards campaign. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the commissioner's remarks, but I would simply say to him that, not only do I not regard that as blackmail, but I do not even regard it as new. EMU has been a clear potential consequence of our involvement in the European Union from the very beginning, as those of us who urged caution at the time pointed out to the British people. I recognise that many Conservative Members were putting a different point of view at the time, and I hope that they are sorry, but it is too late.

Mr. John Cryer: When will my right hon. Friend be able to find time for the annual debate on the police? She will know that in the Met, resources are being taken from divisions and concentrated in murder investigations. Havering, the division that I represent, will be undermined by that move.
When the Tories and Liberals whinge about not having enough time, will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that plenty of Labour Members would happily sit through Easter and August and other holidays? Perhaps if she suggested that on the Floor of the House, she might see Opposition Members taking a different outlook.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first half of his remarks. I recognise the interest in and concern about policing in London. He will know that the Government have always tried to find time, on a suitable occasion, to focus on those matters, and we shall certainly bear his remarks in mind.
With regard to sitting through Easter and August and so on, I am of course well aware that my hon. Friend and other colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), are always willing to be here,


and that is a useful cautionary reminder to the Conservative party. However, I have to tell him that the Government's policy is for a good work-life balance, and in that light I cannot necessarily undertake to accede to his request.

Mr. Graham Brady: The Leader of the House is doubtless aware that next week the Commissioner for Public Appointments will publish her long-awaited report on Government appointments to NHS trusts and health authorities. Will the right hon. Lady make representations to her colleagues in the Department of Health and the Cabinet Office to ensure that Ministers from both Departments make early statements to the House, setting out the action that the Government intend to take to clean up the process of public appointments and to ensure that the political bias that has been evident to date is brought to a stop?

Mrs. Beckett: Of course, I know that the report is to be published, but I do not know what it contains and I do not know that the hon. Gentleman does. I cannot undertake that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will come to the House to make a statement. There may or may not be any need for him to do so. It is right that the Commissioner for Public Appointments should look into such matters, as the Government intended and support, but I do not accept the notion that there is a process to clean up and that that lies at the door of this Government.
I say to the hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, that Conservative Members have very short memories. We remember that under the previous Government, anyone with remotely Labour sympathies was kicked off the board of every health authority and trust, as were many loyal Tories who were not thought to be sufficiently toeing the line of the policies of the then Government. It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. He knows that what I say is true.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the M2 widening that is taking place throughout my constituency? Drivers and freight will enjoy the benefits of driving through Kent to the ports, but is it not right that people who must lose their homes to accommodate the widening are fairly compensated? Mr. and Mrs. Russell of Bluebell Hill have lived in their home for 30 years and received an offer far below the market price from the Highways Agency. Will my right hon. Friend see to it that the Deputy Prime Minister makes a statement to the House about the guidelines that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions gives to the Highways Agency for providing fair compensation to people such as my constituents?

Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern and the matter that he raises, correctly, on behalf of his constituents. I am aware that such matters always cause great anxiety and sometimes considerable resentment. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time or to ask my right hon. Friend to come and make a special statement

to the House, but I undertake to draw my hon. Friend's remarks to his attention, and I am sure that he will look into the matter.

Mr. John Bercow: May we please have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the Part-Time Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, which have so far been issued only in draft form? Given that the Government agreed in April 1998—probably during the tenure of the right hon. Lady at the DTI—to the incorporation in British law of the European directive on the rights of part-time workers, does the Leader of the House agree that it is shameful and appalling for British business that the Government have taken almost two years to produce the proposed directive, and that they have issued consultation proposals allowing only six weeks—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that a number of hon. Members want to put business questions. Will he now come to his point, and will all other hon. Members who are called please put their questions briskly? It happens to be an Opposition Day.

Mr. Bercow: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I apologise profusely to you and to the House.
Is it not a disgrace that businesses have had only six weeks to comment on the highly unsatisfactory proposals that have only belatedly emerged from the Government?

Mrs. Beckett: Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern that it has taken so long to bring the directive forward, the Conservative party resisted doing any of that. However, I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the length of time for consultation, although from memory, I believe that that is not the first or only opportunity for consultation.

Kali Mountford: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to see early-day motion 515:
[That this House, noting that it is a breach of international law and a defiance of mandatory United Nations sanctions to supply arms, fuel, equipment and goods to, or to purchase diamonds from, Jonas Savimbi's UNITA rebel force in Angola, calls for the public identification and, where possible, prosecution of all individuals, private companies and public officials involved; in particular calls upon the Governments of the Ukraine and Belarus to stop arms and munitions exports to UNITA, on Ukrainian pilots to stop flying weapons and diesel to UNITA, on the Government of Zambia to stop convoys of lorries and planes from crossing the border into UNITA-controlled areas with the occasional paid assistance of Zambian Ministers and public officials, on the Government of Uganda to sack senior officials implicated, including President Museveni's half brother, General Salim Saleh, on the Government of Cote d' Ivoire, Togo and Burkina Faso to act immediately to halt their longstanding supplies to UNITA, on the Government of Rwanda to stop their almost daily supply flights from Kigali and other airports to UNITA, on the Government of South Africa to crack down on the dozens of individual business people and arms suppliers who continue to supply UNITA, on the Government of Israel to act against


those of its citizens involved in supply operations and those buying diamonds for sale via the Tel Aviv trading centre, on the Government of the United Arab Emirates to prevent arms being transited from eastern Europe via Dubai to UNITA, on the Government of Switzerland and banking authorities across the world to track down the millions of pounds of Savimbi's assets, secured through illegal sales of diamonds, and without which he cannot pay for the arms and fuel he needs to continue the dreadfully destructive war which has gone on for decades and which is now engulfing the whole region; supports the efforts of De Beers and the Governments of Belgium and the United Kingdom to block illegal sale of UNITA diamonds through Antwerp; welcomes the work of Canada's Ambassador Fowler in leading United Nations efforts to identify and block UNITA sanctions busters; and calls on the entire international community to act decisively to end the war by rigorously imposing sanctions on UNITA and preventing the making of money and private profit out of the misery of the Angolan people.]?
The early-day motion, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), is an excellent resume of sanctions-busting in the region. On Tuesday, in Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), told the House that he was going to New York this week to discuss the flagrant breach of international law. When he returns, will there be an opportunity for the House to debate the matter?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. There is great concern, and the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) is important. The Government sympathise, but I cannot necessarily undertake to find time for a full debate in the House. I recommend to my hon. Friend, as to others, the attractions of Westminster Hall. One of the reasons for proposing it was so that there would be more time for more specific debates on issues such as foreign affairs.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Can we have a debate on the administration of local justice? Is the Leader of the House aware that the proposals to close Ashbourne, Bakewell and Matlock magistrates courts have been brought forward without the alternative arrangements that were promised at the time of the original closures? Will the right hon. Lady arrange for a debate on this important issue?

Mrs. Beckett: No, I was not aware that the proposals had been brought forward without the alternatives being in place. I cannot undertake to arrange a debate, but I can undertake to draw attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Tom Levitt: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the funding of health care? I was inspired to ask the question because I understand that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has made the somewhat bizarre claim that the Tories
would revolutionise private insurance in the way that they revolutionised pensions in the 1980s.

Given that my memory of insurance and pensions in the 1980s is one of rip off and chaos, is it not time that we took an opportunity to lance the boil at an early stage?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As he says, the way in which the Tories revolutionised private pension insurance is well within everybody's memory. That is precisely why everybody is afraid of the Tory proposals for health care. I fear, however, that I cannot on those grounds undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter. When the Opposition next try to exploit health matters, my hon. Friend will no doubt bear in mind the points that he has raised.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the growing scandal of the £92 million which the Government spend on their own advertising? Will we have an opportunity during that debate to ascertain how it came about that Mr. Ray Porter was chosen to star in the new deal advertisements? Was it because he had been a subscriber to Labour party funds or because he was an example of a particularly bad and inappropriate employer?

Mrs. Beckett: I do not know anything about Mr. Ray Porter, but I do know about the Government's advertising. I am well aware that much of that advertising has been directed to ensuring that people are aware of the opportunities that are available under programmes such as the new deal. It is perfectly legitimate for the Government to do that and it is something that every Government have done. Unlike the previous, Conservative Government, whom the hon. Gentleman supported, we are making sure that our advertising covers the entire country and is not confined, as under the previous Government, to constituencies where there might be concern about unemployment without there being many unemployed people within them.

Mr. John Hayes: Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) about the status of Lord Levy, will the Leader of the House give the House the opportunity to hear, in the form of a statement, clarification of the specific responsibilities and duties of Lord Levy, who is described as the Prime Minister's personal envoy in the middle east? That would put an end to the speculation about his shadowy dealings in funding political parties in this country and in the middle east. It would be fairer to him, to the House and to the wider public, because the House needs to know to whom Lord Levy is accountable.

Mrs. Beckett: As I have already said, a written answer is a statement to the House. I refer the hon. Gentleman to yesterday's Hansard, column 221W. He says that a statement would put an end to speculation; I doubt that very much.

Mr. Tony Baldry: May we have a debate in Government time on the work of the immigration and nationality directorate? I am sure that everybody at Croydon works extremely hard, and I know that the Minister and her private office who have a responsibility for immigration matters are always extremely courteous, but there is chaos.
I quote two cases that have arisen in the past 24 hours in my constituency. A company in Banbury wants a key person with a work permit. It has been given three different answers: first, it has been told that the case has been filed and put in the archives; secondly, it has been told that the individual can come; and, thirdly, it has been told to consult the British Consulate in the country concerned. The second case involves a lady who married and came to the United Kingdom perfectly properly last July. She applied for entry clearance to Croydon in July and is still waiting.
Those cases have arisen within 24 hours. I am sure that every colleague in the House is aware of numerous cases of this sort. Please may we have a debate? Our staff are spending a disproportionate amount of time on the telephone to Croydon and are chasing one another's tails. It must be possible to do things in a better way.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand the anxieties that the hon. Gentleman properly identified. I am sure that many hon. Members have similar anxieties and experiences. I have had them for the past 20 years; I hope that a Labour Government will finally sort out the problems.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House does a wonderful job, and I congratulate her. Will she agree to the request of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) for an early debate on the Liaison Committee report entitled "Shifting the Balance"? That important Select Committee is dominated by Labour Members of long service and experience, and the report received unanimous support.
Secondly, will the Leader of the House make arrangements for a statement on what was apparently the Prime Minister's decision to locate Diamond Synchrotron in Oxford rather than Daresbury in the north-west? That decision to locate more jobs in the home counties and the south-east rather than the north-west has caused serious anxiety and disappointment across the political spectrum, including in Labour councils.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. The Liaison Committee report is a major, substantial document, which requires careful consideration. However, I cannot undertake to find time for an early debate.
I understand completely the concern that has been expressed throughout the north-west about the Daresbury project. Many of my hon. Friends have also raised the matter. The Office of Science and Technology and the Wellcome Trust recommended the site that has been chosen to the two Governments involved. However, I understand the anxiety in the north-west and the Government are endeavouring to respond to it.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: May I press the Leader of the House on the amalgamation of the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency? When she returns to her office, she will discover that it is not a gimmick that my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) or the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) dreamt up. Will she undertake to make a

statement and give us the opportunity for a debate on a fundamental matter of Government policy and administration?

Mrs. Beckett: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that an indication, to which he and other hon. Members referred, has been given. I cannot undertake to find time for a specific statement, but I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Given that Back Benchers have few opportunities to speak on proposed legislation if they are not members of a Standing Committee, does the Leader of the House agree that producing timetabling motions for more Bills restricts Back Benchers' ability to represent their constituents' interests? Will she consider the rights of Back Benchers and their obligation to their constituents, and keep such timetabling to an absolute minimum? I agree with the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), who called for shorter recesses to allow more time for us to examine Bills adequately and ensure that proper legislation reaches the statute book.

Mrs. Beckett: Under this Government, there have been shorter recesses. I know that Conservative Members deny that, but if the hon. Lady checks, she will find that that is true.
I could not disagree with the hon. Lady more. Proper timetabled debates are in the interests of Back Benchers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I can tell the hon. Lady that I have been a Member of Parliament for substantially longer than her. During that time, when I have been involved with legislation, I have always made sure that the time was properly apportioned. That ensured that there was time to discuss the important issues.
None of our constituents understand or have sympathy for Members of Parliament wasting hours on trivial debates—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Lady does not waste time, but I simply point out that our constituents do not understand it when we waste time on trivial debates and complain that there is no time for important issues. A proper agreement to tackle important issues avoids that. I believed that when I was a member of the Opposition—we were a good Opposition—and it remains my view.

Mr. Forth: At the risk of being accused of being political in this of all places, may I tentatively suggest to the Leader of the House that it is time for a proper and, if necessary, lengthy debate on the role of so-called "envoys" of the Prime Minister? It would be in the interest of any such envoys, and certainly in the public interest, for us to know with much greater clarity what relationship they have with the Government and the ministerial code of practice, and exactly where they stand in terms of Government policy at home and abroad. They also lack accountability to either House of Parliament. This matter of great importance is worrying more and more people. In the interests of good governance, surely we must have it out in the open and clear beyond all possible doubt.

Mrs. Beckett: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is again pursuing the issue of Lord Levy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has answered questions about that, but what is quite plain and what has not been


disputed by anybody is that Lord Levy has engaged in talks and conversations, which one hopes will promote the cause of middle east peace. Most people will think that more important than such nit-picking.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: During her busy day, has the right hon. Lady had a chance to read the report entitled "EU Membership—What's the Bottom Line?", which was published this morning by the Institute of Directors? It says that, taking into account the free market in the European Union and the inward investment that results from our membership, that membership costs each British family £1,000 a year. As we want to remain in the EU, but do not want to be run by it, may we have an urgent debate on how the EU needs to be restructured so that Britain benefits from it?

Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that there is any need for an urgent debate because the Government report assiduously to the House and spend a great deal of time on their efforts to achieve restructuring of the EU and more efficient spending of the public moneys that it uses, which the Conservative party singularly failed to do in government.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the crisis of democracy in local government? She may not be aware that the Labour leader of Cardiff council has had his pay for his three-day week increased to £58,000. He is the highest-paid councillor in Britain, and Cardiff council tax payers face increases of 10.2 per cent. this year. Seven Labour councillors voted against the increase and one abstained. They were immediately suspended from the Labour Whip. I fear that, unless we can stop the rot in Cardiff, it will spread to every other Labour authority in Britain and council tax payers will have to foot the bill for the greed of Labour councillors.

Mrs. Beckett: I have only two things to say to the hon. Gentleman. First, his party abolished the controls on those allowances in 1995. Secondly, if I were a Conservative Member I would not make a lot of fuss about people who get thousands of pounds for a few days' work.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Lady will have noted the widespread demand for a proper debate—not merely one subsumed in the debate a week on Wednesday—on the statement that the Prime Minister is apparently making today. She will have noted also the considerable unease in the House about the precise role of Lord Levy. She has referred to the Prime

Minister's answers, which I have before me. They say merely that, from time to time, Lord Levy has passed on oral messages. Will she be a real sport and pass an oral message from me to the Prime Minister? We expect changes in Government policy to be announced on the Floor of the House and we should like a little more detail as to the precise role of this extraordinary plenipotentiary.

Mrs. Beckett: I am always willing to pass on messages, but I can think of no circumstances in which it is likely that time will be found for a debate. The people of this country are much more interested in the prospect of peace in the middle east than in the preoccupation of Opposition Members. If any changes are announced, no doubt in the fullness of time those matters will come before the House. At first hearing, they do not sound to me so urgent that they need to be dealt with in five minutes. It does not sound the kind of matter that would take a short time to consider.

Personal Statement

Mr. James Gray: Madam Speaker, may I make a personal statement? During Prime Minister's questions yesterday afternoon, it was I who—from a sedentary position—accused the Prime Minister of being a liar. I recognise that that was unparliamentary language and happily withdraw the remark. When you asked who was the culprit, I fear that I remained silent. In retrospect, I realise that that was inexcusable. I apologise to you and to the House for my remark and my silence after it.

Madam Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Stephen Pound: In light of that full statement, Madam Speaker, it is clear to me that my suggestion to the House yesterday that it may have been the hon. and gallant Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) who called the Prime Minister a liar was wholly unfounded. I wish to express my unreserved apologies to him and to the House.

Madam Speaker: Thank you.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee),
That the matter of the Budget Statement and its implications for Wales be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration—[Mr. Clelland.]

Question agreed to.

Opposition Day

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Mozambique

[Relevant document: Minutes of Evidence taken before the International Development Committee on 14th March, HC 326-i.]

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment that stands in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Gary Streeter: I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern that the Government's response to the humanitarian crisis in Mozambique was hampered by indecision and delay, and that infighting between Ministers in the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence contributed to the delay in sending helicopters and boats to assist in the rescue of the people of Mozambique; deeply regrets that lives were lost as a result; deplores the absence of 'joined up government' and the failure by the Prime Minister to intervene until Her Majesty's Opposition and the media exposed the Government's failings; calls upon Ministers to accept responsibility for such delays; and seeks assurance that the response to any future disasters will be more immediate and co-ordinated.
Something went wrong with the British relief effort in Mozambique. In seven critical days when thousands of people were hanging in trees, there were not enough helicopters flying to rescue them. We will never know how many lives were lost. It was the failings of many, not just of our Government. The purpose of this debate is to examine what went wrong and to learn the lessons, so that next time a natural disaster on this scale strikes—as sadly it will—the British Government can respond more effectively.

Mr. Tony Worthington: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 14 helicopters were flying in Mozambique on 1 March? There were seven South African helicopters fuelled and paid for by the British Government and seven provided by the British Government. All 14 helicopters flying in Mozambique were funded by the Department for International Development. Is he saying that Britain failed? What was the rest of the world doing?

Mr. Streeter: I will come to that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that for most of the time, people were hanging in trees and clinging to rooftops in Mozambique and there were not enough helicopters flying to rescue them. That is irrefutable and the British people feel strongly about it. Most of the time, there were five helicopters in the air.
The House should judge the Government's handling of the Mozambique crisis not by the standards of tabloid headlines or unrealistic counsel of perfection but by the words and promises of the Secretary of State. In February 1998, the right hon. Lady said:
As for my Department's response to emergencies, it is true that the capacity of the British Government to respond rapidly sits within my Department. It works very smoothly and very fast. When there is a need to move, Ministers are not consulted. We have delegated powers and resources available to us, and we move immediately.

We can move over a weekend. There is no need to consult lots of Departments and delay our response.—[Official Report, 11 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 375.]
Unfortunately, we all know from agonising recent experience that the Secretary of State's words were not translated into action. There was delay. Her Department did not move immediately. There was no rapid response mechanism involving the Ministry of Defence or any other Department. It did not work smoothly. Mistakes were made—mistakes that cost lives. Whatever else happens as a consequence of today's debate, the delay, indecision and infighting that undermined the British Government's response must never occur again.

Fiona Mactaggart: In view of the seriousness of the delay that the hon. Gentleman is describing, will he tell us which helicopters arrived on the scene first after those from Mozambique and South Africa? From which country did they come?

Mr. Streeter: Perhaps the hon. Lady is a little out of touch. Helicopters were flown from this country on 3 March; I think that they should have been flown during the weekend before that, at the latest.
Before I consider the Government's response in detail, let me deal with two other matters that should concern us all. The first is the response of the United Nations and the European Union. Yet again, it has been inadequate. In the medium term, it will be important for the House to debate the failure of the international community's multilateral agencies to respond to the crisis in Mozambique, and to others. Although our Government's response fell well short of the expectations of the British people, the truth is that nation states responded more quickly and more effectively than multilateral organisations.
It is often said that nothing happens in the United Nations until a matter reaches the 38th floor, and by then it is too late. We shall need to explore whether these are the right vehicles to be in the front line when natural disasters strike. No official stands before a committee in the United Nations today to be examined on how the UN responded, yet this is the second time that the Secretary of State has been called to account this week. She is being held to account for decisions that she made, or did not make. That is democracy in action, and it works.
Of course it is also true that the response of other nations was patchy. Some countries, both in the region and further afield, should certainly give thought to their own responses, and learn their own lessons. The British people, however, have shown how they feel about the plight of the people of Mozambique with—yet again—their magnificent generosity. They have now given more than £20 million. They expect their Government to match their sacrifice, and to be in the front line when terrible disasters of this kind occur.

Mr. Worthington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman has already had one go, and he made a mess of that. I will not give way to him again.
As I was saying, the British people expect our Government to be in the front line when terrible disasters occur, especially in instances such as this. Mozambique is a Commonwealth country, and we have a special responsibility.
I am not saying that the British Government have done nothing; they have done much that the Conservative party welcomes. We will continue to support the Government over the next few months and years, as the painstaking task of helping the people of Mozambique to rebuild their lives continues. Those people now need food, water, medicine and seed to plant. They need help with the clearance of land mines dislodged by the floods and scattered everywhere. For many years, they will need help with the reconstruction of their homes, and the country's economic and physical infrastructure is in trouble. We will support the Government's efforts throughout that long process, but they must answer serious questions about their handling of the crisis. The people of this country are concerned about the infighting and delay that characterised the Government during the critical seven days while people were stranded, and it is my job to ask those questions on their behalf. They are straight questions, and they deserve straight answers.

Mr. Worthington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech later.
Let me ask the Secretary of State three sets of questions. First, where were the helicopters? On 10 February, the Mozambique Government were asking for help. On 11 February, Oxfam highlighted the need for helicopters and boats, and South African Government helicopters began flying in the region. On 14 February, South African experts predicted more heavy rain. On 18 February, UNICEF confirmed fears about the impending cyclone. All the warning signs were there. Why did it take a further two weeks—until Saturday 26 February—for the Department even to investigate with the Ministry of Defence the availability of British helicopters? Why was it only on Tuesday 29 February that the Department asked the MOD for helicopters? If it was right to send helicopters from Britain on 3 March, why was it not right to send them straight away?
It was obvious that, in the critical seven days from Friday 25 February to 3 March, helicopters to rescue people were the overwhelming priority. That was something that aid agencies and charities could not do. It requires Governments and armed forces to undertake such major logistical exercises. Providing helicopters to rescue people was the one thing that they were looking to us to do. The Government failed to deliver.
The Secretary of State's strategy was to locate helicopters in the region, but that strategy largely failed because, she says, she could not find enough. However, there is mystery here, too. Recently, in reply to a written question, she said:
We have received many offers for the hire of helicopters both from the region and also further afield.—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 622W.]
If that was the case, why were so few of them taken up? There was a window of opportunity of just a few days to get people to safety before they drowned. It was a now-or-never situation. Why did she turn helicopters away? It cannot have been money because she told the House that money was not the issue. Does she now accept that she could have done more?
Does the Secretary of State now accept that, as soon as the situation over the weekend of 25 February arose, the right strategy was to mobilise helicopters from Europe?

Does she accept that she should have explored the availability of Ministry of Defence helicopters well before then? The RAF was ready to go. It was well known that heavy-lift aircraft were available to hire and could get to Mozambique within 24 hours. The needs were obvious. The assets were available. Why did she not act?
Why did the Secretary of State delay so long before sending the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Fort George, which was finally instructed to go on 3 March? She told the House of Commons on Monday 28 February that the situation would get worse before it got better. How could she justify not sending Fort George when she knew that the ship would take a week to get to Mozambique? If it was right to send it on 3 March, why was it not right to send it on 1 March or on the weekend of 26 February? Given that the ship was later dispatched, does she accept that that, too, was an error of judgment?
Where was the joined-up government? The Secretary of State said that she had put in place a system that was very fast, worked very smoothly, could move immediately and could move over a weekend, but, when tested, no such system existed.
In recent years, it has almost always been the case that British aid in a disaster situation has involved the deployment of British forces. Surely, the Secretary of State had built a team approach that included the MOD. It would have been foolish not to, but, when a rapid reaction was necessary, there was no such system or team in place, so her Department and the MOD were at loggerheads for three days over money. That is what the British people find so utterly unacceptable. While people were dying in trees, the Government were wrangling over the price tag for four helicopters.
Having failed to put in place a rapid reaction team that worked, when the Secretary of State first heard that the MOD required £2.2 million for the four Puma helicopters, at the very least she should have picked up the telephone, called the Minister for the Armed Forces and negotiated a satisfactory deal there and then. Given that the Pumas went three days later, the failure to strike an immediate deal with her colleagues was shameful. Is it not true that she turned her back on the best solution because she failed to telephone one of her ministerial colleagues?
Was it because the Secretary of State has had a personal feud with that Minister for several years? Was it because she is in a permanent state of war with many of her Cabinet colleagues? What is the point of giving international development a Cabinet position and then giving it no clout? Where is the joined-up government that we were promised?
Does the Secretary of State think that the MOD should make a separate response to disaster emergencies? The lack of communication between the two Departments was so evident that, when the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) put it to her on Wednesday 1 March that the RAF had hired an Antonov and was sending helicopters, she did not even know.
Whatever happened to collective responsibility? When I ask her about debt relief, she says that that is a matter for the Treasury. When I tackle her about export credit, she refers me to the Department of Trade and Industry. In the midst of a humanitarian crisis for which she has lead ministerial responsibility, she tells the House that it is up to the Ministry of Defence whether it sends helicopters. She tells the Select Committee that it is not her job to tell


the MOD how much to charge for helicopters. But surely it is her job to co-ordinate the British relief effort. A key part of that is getting all Departments to work together. On that front, she has completely and utterly failed.
Whenever the Secretary of State is in difficulty, she blames someone else; it was the MOD's fault for charging too much; it was United Nations officials who left too early. Is it not time for her to accept responsibility for the choices and decisions that she has made?
Why does the Secretary of State tell the House of Commons one thing, but the outside world another? Why did the Secretary of State tell the House—on Monday 28 February and Wednesday 1 March—that money was not the issue, when it clearly was? She said:
The problem is not shortage of money, either, but getting resources deployed in theatre quickly.
If the problem was not shortage of money, why did she fail to charter more helicopters locally when they were offered?
On Wednesday 1 March, why did she tell the House that there was absolutely no problem in co-operation between her Department and the Ministry of Defence, when that was clearly not the case? She told me:
I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. There is absolutely no problem about co-operation with the Ministry of Defence.—[Official Report, 1 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 409.]
That was not true, was it?
The Secretary of State herself said, on the "Today" programme, that the MOD had asked for too much money. She said that the MOD is
charging very high prices and coming in very slow.
Was she telling the truth on the "Today" programme or in the House of Commons?
Next came the most cynical act of all—it was so cynical and so typical of the Government. After a weekend of negative press, the Secretary of State decided to try to hide her Department's shame by announcing, via The Observer, an aid package of £70 million for Mozambique over the next two years. The announcement was clearly intended to give the impression of new money. I quote from The Observer—my favourite Sunday newspaper—of 5 March, which said:
The British Government was last night accused of cynically attempting to manipulate public opinionm
surely not—
over its humanitarian response to the Mozambique crisis after announcing an extra £70 million in aid—only to be forced to admit the figure was less than the amount it had already announced would be spent on aid to the country prior to the recent flooding.
After a week of chaos over the Government's response to the tragedy in Mozambique, International Development Secretary Clare Short pledged to spend £70 m over the next two years in an aid package. The Government had hoped to offset criticism over Whitehall haggling and lack of financial assistance to the victims by announcing this "new" aid package.
In a statement released to The Observer, Short said: "We are also planning to increase our programme of support to Mozambique to £70 m over the next two years and will take a lead role with the World Bank and the EC in assessing the implications of these floods for Mozambique's future needs.
Department for International Development officials claimed the extra money had been agreed with senior civil servants at a meeting only last Tuesday.

But, following inquiries from The Observer the DFID was forced to admit that its annual report, published last March, had projected spending on Mozambique of £38.5 m in 2000–01 and £38 m in the following year—a total of £76.5 m.
Embarrassed DFID officials, confronted by the apparent cut in aid to Mozambique, then quickly increased the aid package to £76.5 m.
How cynical to re-announce money already announced, and how incompetent then to get it wrong! The headline perhaps says it all: "Clare Short's £70 million 'boost' for stricken Mozambique is actually a cut in planned spending". What a cheap and cynical publicity stunt. How typical of the Government.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, I was also involved in the incident with The Observer over that weekend. Is he ready to admit that the journalists have admitted that they had got the message wrong initially and misinterpreted it?

Mr. Streeter: It is typical of the hon. Lady to come to the rescue of the Government. We are used to that from the Liberal Democrats these days. I do not accept what she says. I am delighted to accept the story in The Observer at face value.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Whatever the truth of that story, which seems unclear, would there have been an extra £70 million if the hon. Gentleman had been in charge?

Mr. Streeter: I do not know who the hon. Gentleman is, but he does not know a lot about development or aid. Surely he does not condone his Government cynically re-announcing money that they had already announced and then getting the amount wrong. That is hypocrisy combined with incompetence.
There is not a single person in Britain who does not believe that in the crucial seven days when the lives of thousands of people in Mozambique were hanging by a thread, the British relief effort was paralysed by infighting and incompetence, which led to critical delays in getting more helicopters flying in Mozambique. There is not a single person in Britain who does not believe that lives were lost as a result. They want to hear that the Government have learned the lessons.
This is not the first time that the Secretary of State has been found wanting in a crisis. Her handling of the Montserrat crisis gave widespread offence and caused the Foreign Secretary to take the management of the dependent territories away from her Department. Her disparaging comments about the people of this country giving to the people of Sudan are still remembered with alarm. Her description of calls for debt relief after the devastating hurricane in central America as silly and irrelevant was a massive error of judgment that had to be overruled by the Chancellor. No one doubts that her heart is in the right place, but Ministers are paid to make good decisions. Is it not a vital part of her job to co-ordinate the relief effort across Whitehall? If not, what is her Department for?

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The hon. Gentleman has twice suggested that lives were lost as a result of the delay, but he has failed


to say precisely when the delay happened. So that we can answer the debate properly, will he say precisely when the alleged delay occurred?

Mr. Streeter: I am staggered that the Secretary of State for Defence does not know. The delay, for which he was partly responsible, took place between Saturday 26 February and Friday 3 March, when helicopters were ultimately dispatched. Between those dates, there was ministerial incompetence, a lack of communication and infighting. Several days were lost. Everyone in the House and in the country knows that.
Is it not a vital part of the job of the Secretary of State for International Development to co-ordinate the relief effort across Whitehall? Is not a pattern emerging of a Cabinet Minister in a permanent state of war with her colleagues? She is a Minister building an empire who cannot build a team. She is fond of signing up for 20-year poverty targets, for which she can never be held accountable, but she could not meet a 48-hour target to get helicopters to desperate people hanging in trees.
The Secretary of State will blame others for what went wrong—she always does. She will say that there was no delay and that the Government did all that they could, but no one will believe her. The British people want to know that the Secretary of State, who, by her own admission, has direct responsibility for the Government's relief effort, has sufficient humility to recognise that mistakes were made. They want to know that the Government have learned the lessons. They want to hear that new systems and a cross-departmental rapid reaction force will now be put in place so that next time, the British response will be better; next time, more lives will be saved; and next time, the Government will respond in a way that we can all support.

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
commends the Government for its speedy and effective response to the humanitarian crisis in Mozambique.
The House understands that it is the job of the Opposition to oppose, but it is sad when an Opposition spokesman on such important matters has no respect for accuracy; no concern for the merits of the case; little concern, clearly, for the people of Mozambique; and no respect for the large numbers of UK personnel who are in Mozambique, making a contribution that is respected across the world. Ours is the biggest contribution of any country, and it arrived more rapidly than that of any other country. Those are the facts, and the facts do matter.
If the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) is capable of learning anything, he might want to study the performance of his predecessor, who cared about these matters, addressed the merits of each case and did not play cheap games.
Mozambique is the newest member of the Commonwealth, and the only member not colonised by the UK. It is one of the poorest countries in the world. At least 70 per cent. of the people live on less than $1 a day—the World Bank measure of absolute poverty. Of course that measure is what $1 a day would buy in the US, not in Mozambique. That demonstrates how poor the country is.
Only 40 per cent. of the population have access to basic health services, and only 28 per cent. access to safe water. Chronic malnutrition—when a disaster has not occurred—affects 30 to 40 per cent. of children. Some 60 per cent. of the population are illiterate; 77 per cent. of women are illiterate.
Mozambique has had a very hard hand from history. It was colonised by Portugal, and that meant that there was little investment in the country and no investment in education. Like the other Portuguese territories, it had to fight for its independence. Incidentally, that fight brought down the fascist Salazar regime and helped to bring democracy to Portugal—and thus more democracy to Europe. We should be grateful for that.
Following independence—because the Soviet Union had been its only ally in the struggle—Mozambique tried the disastrous Soviet economic model. This caused the neighbouring apartheid regime in South Africa to interfere and stoke up conflict, leading, in turn, to a vicious civil war, with all the loss and bitterness to which such a war leads.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Clare Short: No, I will not give way at the moment. It is important for the House—especially those who do not concern themselves with the country in question and just want to make cheap points—to know a little about the country we are discussing. [Interruption.] Sadly, that applies to many Opposition Members.
Nine years ago, Mozambique made peace and established democracy. The two sides in the conflict, Renamo and Frelimo, are now Opposition and Government. Mozambique also embarked on major reform—the economy has since then grown well—and the Government began the process of clearing mines and improving services for people.
The UK has a large and growing development programme. We inherited a £20 million-a-year development programme after the election, and it has been growing steadily ever since.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Was that money announced twice?

Clare Short: I will come to that. That is also untrue, as everything the hon. Member for South-West Devon said seems to be.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State mentioned mines, and there have been extensive reports that, since the flooding, a lot of mines which were underground may have been dislodged. Does she have any up-to-date information about that, the risk that it presents and the efforts that have been made to try to deal with that risk?

Clare Short: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right; it has been suggested that mines have been dislodged and are now more dangerous. The UN has a specialist mine-surveillance unit which has been called in. We do not yet have a report, but we are trying to attend to the problem. However, we do not know at the moment how much of a problem it is compared with all the other problems.
Before I turn to some of the specific issues surrounding Mozambique, I wish briefly to remind the House of some of the major emergencies across the world over the past two years to which my Department has made a significant contribution. Since June 1998, there have been 78 natural disasters to which we have responded and on which we have spent £41 million. Those disasters are quickly forgotten, but since December 1998, we have contributed assistance after floods in Vietnam; a cyclone in Fiji; and an earthquake in Colombia; in March 1999, after a famine in North Korea and floods in Bolivia; in April 1999, after a volcano in Cameroon—

Mr. Streeter: This is not relevant.

Clare Short: It is relevant, because the debate is about the competence of my Department in responding to emergencies and the false allegations made by the hon. Gentleman. We assisted after a cyclone in Pakistan in May 1999—[Interruption.] We are part of an international system that responds to emergencies, not to Opposition Members. We provided help after floods in China in August 1999; after the earthquake in Turkey, which the House might remember; after the earthquake in Taiwan in September 1999; after a hurricane in the Bahamas; after a cyclone in India in November 1999; after more floods in Vietnam; after another earthquake in Turkey; after a hurricane in Anguilla; after an earthquake in Vanuatu in December 1999; after floods in Venezuela; after storms in France, because it needed people to get the electricity system working; after storms in Mongolia in March; and after cyclones in Madagascar, also this month.
We are organised as a Department to respond very quickly. The Department maintains a round-the-clock, round-the-year, 24-hour, in-house emergency response capability in its—

Mr. John Hayes: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Clare Short: No, but I will give in to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) at the end of my paragraph. I mean that I will give way—I certainly will not give in. [Interruption.] If the House is concerned about the capacity of the UK to respond, it should listen to what I am saying.
The emergency response capability is provided by the conflict and humanitarian affairs department—CHAD—which includes emergency response teams equipped with vehicles and communications equipment, which can be deployed immediately with specialist staff covering a wide range of disciplines. We maintain stockpiles of essential equipment and relief items such as tents, water equipment, household items and so on, which we can also deploy if required.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the right hon. Lady accept that some Opposition Members do know a little about the history of that tragic country, and that some of us know that in other crises her Department has performed more adequately than it has in Mozambique? Will she accept

that we are having a debate about that crisis? Does she deny that she said on the "Today" programme that the problem was the Ministry of Defence
charging very high prices and coming in too slow?
If that is the case, will she say which of the two Defence Ministers who are sitting flanking her on the Front Bench like jailers she holds responsible?

Clare Short: I shall come on to the specific question the hon. Gentleman asks in a moment. I accept that some Opposition Members care about countries such as Mozambique, but I am sad to say that I do not believe that the hon. Member for South-West Devon cares about affairs in a country such as Mozambique.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: That is a gratuitous insult.

Clare Short: The hon. Lady can hardly talk about gratuitous insults, given that she is sitting next to the hon. Member for South-West Devon.
In addition, my Department has established arrangements to call in resources from other Government Departments—[Interruption.] Opposition Members claim that they want to hear the answer to their questions. We also have arrangements to call in resources from companies and non-governmental organisations, including search and rescue teams from UK fire services, military assets from the Ministry of Defence, engineers from the Northern Ireland Electricity Company and from Registered Engineers for Disaster Relief, health care professionals from the NHS through the International Health Exchange

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Clare Short: No, I will not.
We also have partnerships with Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland, so that resources and capabilities can be shared.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Clare Short: No, not at the moment. We have—

Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?

Clare Short: No, I will not.
It has been alleged by Opposition Members that we have frequently responded slowly. I am simply explaining to the House that the UK has capacities that are admired across the world and that it deploys quickly in emergencies all over the world. On this side of the House, we are proud of the people of our country who respond in that way, but clearly Opposition Members are not.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Clare Short: Not just now, but I will in a moment.
We have a reputation across the world as one of the quickest, most effective and most generous countries in the world when responding to such emergencies.
Briefly, I should like to correct some of the misleading stories that appeared yesterday, as Lobby correspondents struggled to find a new row story, rather than simply report the truth.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Clare Short: No.

Mr. Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State said that she would give way.

Clare Short: I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I am not giving way at the moment. I should be grateful if you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would ask him to honour the normal rules of the House.
I certainly did not criticise officials from my Department when I gave evidence to the International Development Committee. The Chairman of that Committee, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), is present, and I am sure that he will confirm that. My officials—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I shall indeed use my authority to decide on these matters, but it is for the right hon. Lady to decide whether she is giving way in the debate. This is a very serious matter. I hope that the House can debate it in a calmer atmosphere, with fewer sedentary interventions.

Clare Short: As I was saying, my officials are some of the best in the world and are widely admired. I made no criticism of them, nor did I blame the United Nations for the emergency.
The emergency was what insurance companies call an act of God. Perhaps a story will now appear with the headline "Clare Short Shifts Blame to God". After each emergency we try to learn lessons and, as I told the Select Committee, once the UN arrived—in the person of Ross Mountain of the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs—the UN co-ordination was superb.
The UN response was a little slow in arriving, and we would have done better if it had come earlier, but that is a lesson for the future. I have discussed the matter with Kofi Annan, and we have agreed to try and tighten systems to ensure that the response is swifter in future.

Mr. Duncan Smith: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. In an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) asked whether she had gone on the "Today" programme to blame the Ministry of Defence for the price that it had quoted and the delay in delivering items to Mozambique. Will she answer that question with a simple yes or no?

Clare Short: I shall come to that. [Interruption.] It is clear that Conservative Members care nothing about Mozambique, the emergency there or our response to it. They want to play cheap political games. I shall come to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Chingford and

Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), but the context is the emergency in Mozambique. The hon. Gentleman might at least pretend to be concerned about that.
The problem that we frequently experience is that a rush of press interest follows the rapid onset of an emergency. A paradox therefore arises: there is no doubt that press coverage moves the people of the world, and that that helps bring help, but it also usually leads to screaming headlines about who is at fault and why the disaster was not prevented or dealt with more efficiently.
Such discussion is, of course, valuable and legitimate, particularly after the event, as it helps us to learn from each disaster and strengthen international systems. However, during the emergency, it very often distorts discussion of what needs to be done and what is being done, and adds to the pressures on those dealing with the emergency—often, indeed, pressurising them to take inappropriate action.
We have seen a clear example of such distorted comment in the case of the UK response to Mozambique. Those distortions have been parroted by the hon. Member for South-West Devon today. All who are informed about events on the ground agree that the UK response has been the fastest and largest of any country in the world. President Chissano of Mozambique has sent a message to that effect. Moreover, Kofi Annan was in London yesterday, and made the same thing clear in all the meetings that he had during his visit.
As I made clear to the Select Committee on International Development on Tuesday—I understand that the record of that evidence has been made available to all hon. Members—there was no row of any kind between Ministers from the Ministry of Defence and my Department.

Mr. Hayes: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Clare Short: No, of course not.

Mr. Hayes: Why not?

Clare Short: Because you have been interrupting this very important discussion about the situation in Mozambique to try to talk about four helicopters. I am trying to give you the answer, but again you try and interrupt.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady has used the word "you" on two occasions now. That is not the correct parliamentary language, and I should be grateful if she would observe the correct usage. When hon. Members try to intervene, she need do no more than indicate whether or not she will accept an intervention.

Clare Short: I would, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but Conservative Members keep shouting rather than merely asking whether they may intervene.
The decision not to commission four Puma helicopters from the Ministry of Defence at £2.2 million but to commission less costly helicopters from southern Africa caused no delay of any kind in getting helicopters to Mozambique. Even Conservative Members can understand that helicopters from the United Kingdom would take


longer to arrive in Mozambique than helicopters from southern Africa. Perhaps even they can cope with that concept, or that understanding of geography.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Clare Short: No, I will not give way. May I proceed?

Mr. Streeter: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Clare Short: No, I certainly will not.
The reality is that during such an emergency, and every time, staff from our conflict and humanitarian affairs department commission emergency help on a daily basis from when the crisis begins. As we always do, we ask the Ministry of Defence as well as other providers what it has available. We then commission what is closest at the best price. I cannot see anyone advocating anything different—anyone with any sense, that is.
There was no financial ceiling on our available help. Indeed, the Treasury made it clear at ministerial and official levels that extra money was available if needed. In the early stages of such an emergency—for people in the mud in central America or on the top of trees or houses in Mozambique—it is the speed of response that saves lives.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the right hon. Lady give way on that point?

Clare Short: No, I will not give way.
In fact, 13,000 to 15,000 people were rescued in the early days from trees and roofs. Without the helicopters, perhaps half of them would have perished. The best thing that we did in this phase was to provide the money to keep the South African helicopters in the air, saving lives. The helicopters that came later have helped move supplies around and have been very valuable in the second stage of the emergency, but they were too late to help with search and rescue.
On 29 February, four days after the cyclone struck, we commissioned five further helicopters from southern Africa—they were the closest, so they could get there the fastest. Even they were too late to help with search and rescue, although of course they provided major help with the distribution of relief supplies. Those are the facts about saving lives and getting helicopters to Mozambique.

Mr. Hayes: rose—

Mr. Graham Brady: rose—

Clare Short: On 29 February, we also sent two large aircraft containing 69 inflatable boats, 39 rafts, 20 Land Rovers, shelter material and 30 volunteer experts from our fire services and our life boat services. I have heard no one praise them. They are working there still today, and we should be proud of them.
We should be very proud that my Department has on standby firefighters, life boat experts, logisticians, health workers and other experts who will overnight drop

everything and respond to an emergency anywhere in the world. We are entitled to be very proud of the generosity and expertise that is available in the United Kingdom and of the effectiveness of Department for International Development staff, who keep all such capacity up to date and on standby so that we can provide the help that is needed as emergencies arise.

Mr. Swayne: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Clare Short: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who asked a sensible question during International Development questions.

Mr. Swayne: I hope that the right hon. Lady will consider this a sensible question. While we are rightly proud of the contribution of those volunteers, we are concerned about the issue with the MOD. Why did she complain about the price that the MOD was charging for the helicopters?

Clare Short: Perhaps I should speak very, very slowly, in capital letters. When asked why we had not commissioned MOD helicopters, I explained that they were very expensive and would take quite a long time to get to Mozambique because they had to get from the UK down to southern Africa. We had alternatives that were closer and cheaper, so we commissioned those. That is the answer; that is what we did, and it was clearly the right thing to do.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Clare Short: No, I am not giving way—the answer is clear. [Interruption.] There seems to be an awful lot of noise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
A list is available of all the emergency help that has been provided to Mozambique, and it is being added to continuously. The House will see that my officials had been commissioning and sending help long before there was any media interest in the crisis in Mozambique, and that we will remain engaged after the media has moved on.
I should like to deal with the "someone ought to do something" criticism. Various people have produced articles suggesting that the disaster could or should have been prevented. Mozambique is used to floods and cyclones—they are regular events for the country. But the two events have not come at the same time, as in this emergency, since records began 50 years ago.
The first phase of the emergency began on 10 January with heavy rains in Mozambique, Botswana, South Africa and Swaziland, which caused flooding. Because of local topography, the flooding returns to Mozambique in a second stage, raising the water level. Flooding accelerated in early February when a number of rivers in Maputo and Gaza provinces burst their banks. By 10 February, 200,000 people were estimated to be affected, many of whom moved to emergency accommodation. During this phase the relief effort focused on delivering tents, sanitation facilities, shelters and basic survival items. From 11 to 16 February, we provided £1.1 million worth of such help through United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations who were on the ground and able to help immediately.
Phase 2 started after 25 February and was the consequence of Cyclone Eline, which led to a massive tide of water, flooding rivers and bursting dams. Warnings went out to people to get to higher ground, but communications are poor in Mozambique, and a major flood crest surged down the Limpopo, Save, Buze and Inkomati rivers overnight on 25 February. Many people lost their lives, and large numbers of very poor people have lost everything—their homes, possessions, crops and animals—and are scattered in 87 formal and informal centres.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mr. St. Aubyn: rose—

Mr. Hayes: rose—

Clare Short: No.
The waters are going down. It looks increasingly as though there will not be flooding in the north, although that may be proved wrong as a danger remains that the Caborra Bassa will flood, and rain is still falling heavily even though the cyclone coming from the Indian ocean has turned and departed. We shall not be sure whether the north is safe from equally savage floods for another two or three weeks. We are now in the phase of the emergency in which we need to ensure that people have food, medical care, seeds and tools so that we can avoid more loss of life from hunger and disease. In many emergencies, more lives are lost in that second phase than in the first. We must help people to get back to their lands and rebuild their homes.
Obviously, rehabilitation will take time. At the weekend I announced a further £12 million worth of emergency assistance. The details of that help are outlined in the memorandum that we provided to the Select Committee, and it is available in the House.

Mr. Hayes: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Clare Short: I will. I hope that it is for the last time, but I realise that the hon. Gentleman has been trying to intervene.

Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. We do not seek to challenge her good intentions. The debate is about her competence. Given the criticisms made of the co-ordination of our reaction after Hurricane Mitch, what plans did she make for disaster recovery, a rapid reaction force, and a strategy for crisis management? If such plans were in place, can we be made aware of it? Could the plans be laid before us so that we might study and debate them intelligently?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have made so much noise during the debate that they have not heard the answer to that question. I have been telling the House what we have done, and I have outlined it in a memorandum to the Select Committee. UK performance and speed of response are honoured and respected across the world. It seems that the only people who do not respect it are the Opposition in the House of Commons, and that is very sad.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mr. Fabricant: rose—

Clare Short: No, I will not.
As soon as possible, we must get back to development. Large numbers of lives are lost week in and week out in Mozambique as a result of the terrible poverty of that country. Life expectancy in Mozambique is 47 years. Between 30 and 40 per cent. of children are chronically malnourished.
We have already allocated £70 million to our development programme for the next two 2 years. The hon. Member for South-West Devon read out an article from The Observer. I know nothing of the supposed quotes in it. On Saturday, I authorised a statement to the Press Association, which simply described all that we had done and said—I amended it to say this, so there is no doubt about it—that we had already committed about £70 million for development efforts over the next two years. That remains the case.
Under pressure from the Select Committee, I am publishing our plans ahead of time in a way no previous Government have done. That does not mean that precisely that sum will be spent; obviously, funds are moved depending on effectiveness. The £70 million commitment, which I had already made public, as no previous Government ever would have done, remains, but funding can be increased if Mozambique can spend more over the next two years. As it is a very poor country with weak capacity, Mozambique has considerable reserves from debt relief that it has been unable to spend. We are committed to at least £70 million, but it will be more if the country needs more help.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mr. Fabricant: rose—

Clare Short: No.—[Interruption.] Hurricane Mitch has been referred to. The current fashion seems to be that when people are under the mud in Central America, we are asked for debt relief. That will not save lives. Debt relief is, however, important for reconstruction; that was the reference to central America.
On debt forgiveness, because Mozambique has been a star reformer, it received debt relief of £1.7 billion under the heavily indebted poor countries scheme—HIPC 1. Under HIPC2, it will receive a further £250 million. The UK has made it clear that we will have a moratorium on payments in the meantime—just as we did in central America—before Mozambique qualifies for HIPC2; we shall then move to 100 per cent. debt relief. Under a UK initiative in the Paris Club yesterday, all countries have agreed to a moratorium on debt relief. Mozambique will not be required to pay debt relief anywhere in the world until it qualifies for enhanced HIPC. At that time, we hope that most countries will join us in moving to 100 per cent. debt relief.
Many people believe that the recent spate of disasters is the result of environmental degradation. The advice that I have received is that so far there is no evidence for that, but that, because larger numbers of people are living on more marginal lands or in inappropriate places, the human suffering resulting from natural disasters is growing exponentially. However, there is no doubt that global warming is taking place; it is predicted that that will cause more turbulence, so we can expect an increasing number of such disasters in the years to come.
We must, therefore, get the world's systems better prepared. For example, Bangladesh recently suffered its worst floods in 50 years, but there was little loss of life, because that country is now so well organised in coping with such disasters. However, floods in central America led to much greater loss of life because local organisations were not in place.
We have been working to improve the capacity of poor, disaster-prone countries to prepare and respond to disasters. For example, through a three-year programme with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, help is being given to national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies throughout the world to prepare countries to respond quickly to rapid-onset disasters. I have a copy of the document produced by the international federation if hon. Members are interested in the matter.
We are also working to strengthen international systems. Until about three years ago, the world's response to disasters was ad hoc. The unfortunate country suffering from a flood or an earthquake took its chances on whether its pleas for help were heard. It was pot luck whether countries received relief that suited their needs.
Lessons have been learned. Through my Department's partnership programme with UN agencies, such as the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs—I have a publication on the work of that organisation—the World Food Programme, UNICEF and especially the Red Cross, we have helped to set up much more systematic arrangements whereby information from a disaster is quickly assessed to produce a clear list of priorities to which donors can contribute. Contingency stocks of relief supplies and a worldwide network of experts can be made available at an e-mail's notice.
The UK is a major contributor to the UN disaster assessment and co-ordination system.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Clare Short: No, I shall not.
That work needs to be strengthened and taken forward more rapidly. However, the House should know that the UK has been a leading country in work over the past three years—hon. Members should note the time scale—to strengthen disaster preparedness throughout the world.
In conclusion, the UK response to the floods in Mozambique was one of the speediest and most generous in the world. There was—

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Clare Short: No, I shall not, as I have made clear.
I repeat that there was no delay whatever in sending help to Mozambique because of our decision not to commission MOD helicopters. They came in expensively; they were far away; and we had cheaper and closer alternatives. There was no delay whatever. The thesis put by the hon. Member for South-West Devon is false.
Of course, much remains to be done to help Mozambique to recover from the disaster and to support the country's development. We have a large and growing programme in Mozambique and we shall be there for the

long term. We need to redouble our efforts and those of the whole international system to improve disaster preparedness throughout the world—especially in countries subject to rapid-onset natural disasters.
I conclude by thanking the staff of my Department in London and in Maputo for their magnificent and continuing effort. I also thank—I hope on behalf of all of us—all the UK volunteers: the firefighters, the lifeboat experts, logisticians and members of our armed forces, who are working to help cope with the emergency.
Last but not least, I thank the British public for their generosity in responding to the appeal for Mozambique. We are entitled to feel proud of the spirit of generosity and concern that exists throughout our country. I am sure that the whole House will want to express its thanks to all who have worked so hard on our behalf to provide so much help to people in such desperate need in Mozambique.

Mr. Stephen Day: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened to all the Secretary of State's speech because I thought that she might correct what was perhaps an inadvertent inaccuracy. In her brief history lesson on Mozambique, she told the House that it was the only non-British former colony to join the Commonwealth. In fact, on the same day that Mozambique joined the Commonwealth, the former French colony of Cameroon also joined. I would like the right hon. Lady to have the opportunity to correct—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: The Liberal Democrats will not support the official Opposition's motion. In fact, in the course of the debate, my regard for the Conservatives has sunk to a new low.
Mozambique is one of the poorest countries in the world, but it has done well over recent years. It has been hit by a catastrophe in which 250,000 people have lost their homes, an unknown number are dead and children have been orphaned and in which malaria, diarrhoea and cholera are rampant. All that Her Majesty's official Opposition can do is seek to score cheap political points with this motion.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: rose—

Dr. Julian Lewis: rose—

Dr. Tonge: I will not give way yet. Conservative Members have clearly missed the point. [Interruption.] If they stay in the Chamber, I shall explain why. When I was younger, I had methods for dealing with temper tantrums.
The official Opposition's approach has been destructive—business as usual, in other words.

Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dr. Tonge: No, I will not give way until I am further into my speech.
The purpose of the debate should be to take a cool look at what happened, to see whether we can learn any lessons. I listened to the Secretary of State at a meeting


of the Select Committee on International Development on Tuesday. She admitted that the United Nations assessment team, which included two people from the Department for International Development, withdrew from Mozambique too early. That was a failure on its part. That was well reported on the website of Independent News World, and we read the report on the net.
Why did the United Nations quick response unit, along with two of our officials, withdraw too early? That is an issue that I would like to address. It must never happen again.

Clare Short: The press reports about our officials were inaccurate. British officials did not withdraw with the United Nations team, and my officials are upset by the report that they did. I did not like the way the reports suggested that the whole thing was the United Nations fault. We have a strengthening and improving UN system, and we need to learn from this experience so that we can strengthen it further. We should not just turn around and attack the UN when it is getting better at co-ordinating responses to such emergencies.

Dr. Tonge: I thank the Secretary of State for that response, but it is an issue that we need to consider carefully. We all remember poor Mr. Fish, the weather forecaster, denying that a hurricane was going to happen. Although the hurricane did a lot of damage, fortunately for us it did not do damage on the scale that has occurred in Mozambique. We must find ways to strengthen the forecasting of emergencies and to make sure that we know in advance what is going to happen.

Mrs. Laing: I thank the hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving way because, after all, this is a debate not a monologue. Does she accept that her opening remarks were not correct? Her Majesty's Opposition are seeking to do their job in holding the Government to account and making sure that the House and the Government learn from some of the mistakes that have been made. That will help to ensure that things are done better in future.

Dr. Tonge: If the hon. Lady listens carefully to my speech, I will teach her how best that can be done.

Mr. Robathan: Come on matron.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we should get on to the main content of the debate. It is a very serious matter.

Dr. Tonge: Before we do that, I want to point out how easy it is in a disaster for people to do the wrong thing. That is a common human failing. Many years ago, I was a casualty officer in a London teaching hospital. I know that to be able to respond correctly to emergencies, one has to be extremely well trained and to have had lots of practice. Whether it is a small disaster or a large one, that is required. If I had a cardiac arrest here and now, most of you would rush around panicking and not know what to do. That might be a very good thing from your point of view and you might enjoy that very much—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is not even using correct parliamentary language. I am sure that she will soon relate her remarks to what has happened in Mozambique.

Dr. Tonge: I will indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, if anything dreadful happened to me, I am sure that the

Conservatives would blame it on the fact that the Secretary of State for Health was not sitting on the Front Bench.
From the evidence that I have heard, once DFID and the Secretary of State realised the full extent of the disaster, not even the Ministry of Defence's pricing policy, about which we have heard a great deal, slowed down the response. In fact, it speeded it up because the Secretary of State immediately looked for helicopters that were nearer. As we have heard, we had a much quicker and more efficient response, with helicopters funded by us but procured in South Africa.
The United Kingdom was in the forefront of the relief effort, at one stage funding nine out of 11 helicopters—and they were commissioned locally. We have prepared for the second stage of rebuilding shelters and distributing foods and medicines with our own equipment, which has started to go to Mozambique.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dr. Tonge: No, I will not.
There are problems for us and for the world. We must look to the future. There is no question but that the United Kingdom and the international community must be able to respond to natural disasters more effectively. The pundits tell us that, with global warming, disasters will be more frequent. Many articles in the newspapers in recent weeks have been on that subject. Therefore, it is imperative that we establish not just a DFID rapid reaction force, but an international rapid response disaster task force.

Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dr. Tonge: No, I wish to make a little progress.
That task force would ideally be based at the United Nations, but the European Union might be able to make a start.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Where was the European Union?

Dr. Tonge: Indeed. A rapid response task force would not mean having equipment standing by doing nothing while it waited for something to happen. It would mean that future Secretaries of State would know the location of the helicopters nearest to the disaster area and would know whether they could be commissioned. The Ministry of Defence would not take two days, as I believe it did, to discover that there were no usable UK helicopters less than 3,000 miles away. There would be no problem with funding, because that would be set according to a pre-determined formula.

Mr. Hayes: I was going to make a point in support of the hon. Lady, but perhaps she will answer the question that the Secretary of State failed to answer when I asked it. Following the criticisms of the co-ordination and the response to hurricane Mitch, what plans did the Secretary of State have to establish the sort of rapid reaction force that the hon. Lady has mentioned? She will know that a


good response is about good planning. Our challenge to the Government is about their competence in emergency, disaster and recovery planning.

Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because I was about to come to that point. Paragraph 52 of the strategic defence review, which is entitled "Peace Support and Humanitarian Operations", sets out the position clearly. It says:
In a less stable world, we have seen more international operations of this type. The trends identified earlier suggest that this will continue. Britain will play its full part in such international efforts. At one end of the spectrum, this might involve logistic or medical support to a disaster relief operation.
In "Modernising Defence", the response to hurricane Mitch, to which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) referred, is talked about in glowing terms. The Ministry of Defence describes its action in central America, where
following the devastation wrought by Hurricane Mitch in October and November 1998 in some of the world's poorest countries, a Royal Navy task group led by NHS Ocean and with Royal Marines embarked, gave emergency life-saving assistance to Nicaragua and Honduras. We helped to search for and rescue people.

Mr. Blunt: One of the major issues in the debate is the MOD's involvement, and it is here that the Secretary of State's customary candour has got her into difficulty. Her Department made a decision about the £2.2 million cost, and then said that cost was not an issue when plainly it was an issue in making the decision about MOD helicopters. That may then have provoked her to look for other helicopters elsewhere, or she may already have been doing that, but that is an issue, as it was in the dispatch of the Fort George, a decision that was not made until 3 March.

Dr. Tonge: I am not here to answer for the Secretary of State for Defence; he will answer for himself. I have made the point that whatever occurred between the DFID and the MOD caused no delay whatsoever, and that is the important point.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dr. Tonge: No, I will not give way again. I want to make progress.
Funding is a difficult issue between Departments, and I hope, as I am sure all hon. Members do, that Departments would always protect their budgets. However, there is no time in an emergency to sort out budgets, and a formula must be worked out in advance.
There are other problems, such as that of heavy-lift equipment. The Conservatives seem to think that one can put helicopters in a box and send them out to Mozambique to arrive the next day. That is complete nonsense. We have a problem in moving heavy equipment, which the strategic defence review addressed, which delayed matters even further. I wish that the Conservatives would recognise that.
Such issues must be worked out as part of a plan. Why do we not consult our European partners now that the major crisis is over? A European defence review is

taking place. Let us do an inventory of all the equipment in Europe and find out whether it can be used in an emergency, or is that too simple?

Mr. David Heath: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said so far. Does she agree that there is a particular problem in the Indian ocean region, in that it is not easily accessible by most European navies and air forces or by the Americans? Access is slightly different from the mediterranean, the Caribbean or west Africa. Should international action be taken to deal with the specific problems of the Indian ocean, east Africa and the Indian subcontinent?

Dr. Tonge: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Indian ocean area is very isolated in terms of military equipment and help for disaster relief. If my memory serves me correctly, many parts of that area will be subject to flooding in future because of global warming. My hon. Friend is right to say that we need to consider that area in particular and ensure that help is available when it is needed.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dr. Tonge: No, I will not. I have given way many times and I have almost finished.
I would have thought that, without any international structures in place, the Ministry of Defence should have made an offer of help for Mozambique, rather than waiting to be asked.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

Dr. Tonge: Just once, as the hon. Gentleman is so persistent.

Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Lady has now twice alleged that no delay was incurred and therefore no lives were lost, and then she said twice that the MOD was guilty of not responding in time. She said earlier that the MOD was asked for help on the Saturday but did not respond until the Monday. Does she know for certain that the answer to the question asked by DFID was not given on the Sunday?

Dr. Tonge: The hon. Gentleman had a very late night, and I will have to read his question in Hansard tomorrow to make head or tail of it. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) has just intervened on the hon. Lady, and he ought not then to start making comments from a sedentary position.

Dr. Tonge: Let us make sure that a United Nations or European Union rapid response disaster task force is in place the next time that a country needs us.
The third stage of the disaster in Mozambique is the country's reconstruction. In three weeks, the country has been set back 10 or more years. It has an estimated public debt of $6.4 billion. To its credit, our country has already announced total debt relief on all bilateral debt and export credit guarantees. There was good news from the Paris


Club yesterday that France and Italy are to reduce Mozambique's debt commitment to them by two thirds, which means that, in total, 40 per cent. of the country's debt will be wiped out. The remaining 60 per cent. is with the USA, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In the medium and long term, can the Government assure us that they will do all in their power to ensure that Mozambique's debt commitment is wiped out?
When will the UK achieve the target of devoting 0.7 per cent. of gross national product to development? That figure fell under the Conservatives. They seem to have forgotten that in all the kerfuffle today, but it is another thing that they must be very proud of. Despite our economic success, progress is still too slow.
The British public have been as generous as ever in their response to the disaster in Mozambique. While the TV cameras are there, the money pours in, but once they have gone, people no longer see the need to contribute some of their income to people who have nothing. Who now remembers the famine in the Sudan? Hurricane Mitch has been mentioned, but it is rarely talked about. Who remembers the Turkish earthquake or Montserrat? It is no good our snatching new-born babies from trees in front of TV cameras if they are then left to suffer a slow and painful death from disease and starvation. We must do more for the developing world.

Ann Clwyd: I was there. I was one of four hon. Members, including a Conservative Member, from the Select Committee, who visited Mozambique during the crucial period that we are discussing. I am sorry that Opposition bovver boys have left the Chamber in droves, because I should like them to hear the truth about what went on in Mozambique at that time.
We were supposed to go into Mozambique from Swaziland by road. We were unable to go in on Sunday 20 February because the weather was too bad and the road was already flooded, so we had to fly in over a vast area of the country, which looked like a great sea. It was impossible to say what was land and what was water.
I have listened to the criticisms made of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for International Development and for Defence, and I do not recognise the picture being painted by Conservative Members.
People in Mozambique were congratulating the British Government on their quick action and on the fact that they had tents and other emergency equipment on the ground during the time that we were there. We saw those supplies being taken off the ground by two helicopters that were working in rapid rotation, carrying the food and tents that had come from the United Kingdom to people who had been without food and shelter for four days.
While we were there, we met representatives of the aid agencies who were working on the ground, members of the Government of Mozambique, and the Prime Minister of Mozambique, who thanked the British Government for their rapid action and for the assistance that they were giving to the country.
I heard no criticism at all while I was in Mozambique. Everyone knows that I am not an apologist for the Government. If I have criticisms to make, I will make them. That is the honest truth: I did not hear any criticism while I was there.

Mr. Streeter: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way on an important point. Can she confirm that she left

Mozambique on 24 or 25 February, and that the period that we have been discussing is primarily from Friday 25 and Saturday 26 February? That was when people were stranded up trees. What does she make of the comment by the spokesman for President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, who said:
In any case, the British have responded very late and almost grudgingly.
Was he wrong?

Ann Clwyd: I used a different quote in the Select Committee meeting the other day. I certainly did not see that comment in the speech. Given the knowledge that we gained while we were in Mozambique, I cannot believe that that criticism was made.
The aid agencies were obviously working under a great deal of stress, even during the period 20 to 24 February. There had already been extensive flooding in the country. When we arrived in Maputo, we were taken immediately by one of the aid agencies to see the damage to roads and houses and the flooded areas where poorer people lived in the city. People were already queueing at stand-pipes for water and living under extremely difficult conditions. That was before the period to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Flooding was already a problem in Mozambique when we were there.
We went to one of the briefing meetings held by the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which is an umbrella organisation responsible for co-ordination with Governments of host countries in disaster situations. We heard the representative from the Department for International Development, who at that time seemed to be co-ordinating the aid agencies. We also heard someone from South Africa, who was responsible for running the helicopters, speak about his situation. I came away from that meeting feeling that OCHA was extremely laid back. No sense of urgency was transmitted to me or to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who was also there.
If blame is to be apportioned, we must bear in mind that we all have the same aim—to bring relief to people who are hit by a crisis—and we want to do that better next time. We should look carefully at the role of OCHA.
We as a Committee visited OCHA in Geneva in December. We have our own view of how it operates. OCHA has been continually monitoring and reporting the situation in Mozambique since the rains started on 26 January 2000. Since that date, it has issued about 16 situation reports on the emergency.
Following the very heavy rains from 4 to 7 February, OCHA organised the five-member UN disaster and co-ordination team to Mozambique. One of the questions that I asked on the Select Committee and which I hope we will ask the OCHA representative next week is why OCHA withdrew its team at a particular moment. The first team's tour of duty ended, apparently, on 24 February. A second team was not dispatched to Mozambique until 29 February. That was a crucial period in the operation.
The Department for International Development was being told by people on the ground what was needed at a particular time. I believe that the Department was presented with a rather confused picture. It was not clear at various times what assets were needed, so DFID sent tents, clean drinking water and basic survival items. That is what was being requested at the time.
Watching the two helicopters working, it was clear to us that they could not get the food and tents off the ground fast enough. They were working in rapid rotation, with 10 to 15 minutes between taking off and landing. They were not switching off the engines, but getting the food and tents stuffed into the helicopters straight away.
Why were not more helicopters taking part in the operation at that time? Why was the UN telling us that it was worried about the funding of the five helicopters that apparently were in Mozambique then? I believe that those five helicopters were funded by the Nordic countries. When DFID realised that there was a problem with the funding, it stepped in and agreed to fuel more aircraft the following week.
As soon as DFID knew what the problem was, it responded rapidly. It was OCHA that underestimated the gravity of the situation and left as the new cyclone came, at the key moment between 25 and 29 February, when people were at their most desperate, when people on roofs and up trees were being shown on film. That was when there was a gap in OCHA's coverage of Mozambique.
There were obviously failures in communication and in responsibility, but it is not fair to blame the British Government, who have done more than any other country to assist during the crisis in Mozambique. People on the ground said that. Oxfam, Christian Aid and the Save the Children Fund said so. We were there and we heard them say it, then we came home and heard my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State heavily criticised, despite the fact that they had already responded as they thought appropriate at the time. That is grossly unfair.
I agree that the international response was slow. It was hesitant and unco-ordinated. However, the responsibility for co-ordination lay not with my right hon. Friends, but elsewhere. It is easy to say that the Government of Mozambique did not do enough. They were elected in December and started work in January, in one of the poorest countries in the world. It is not surprising that they did not respond in the way that some critics think they should have responded.
I pay tribute to the Red Cross and to Medecins sans Frontiers, which as usual were at the forefront of the response. To blame the Government of Mozambique is unfair. The infrastructure of the country was severely damaged and roads were cut off. We went 30 miles outside Maputo, and the road was not there any more. It was just a huge current and a vast expanse of water. People were coming out of the area with their possessions on their heads. I remember a man who came to me with a packet of biscuits which he had carried while trudging through half a mile of water. On the roadside, he offered me a biscuit. When I refused, he said, "Why not?" I said, "Because you have not eaten and I have."
Within a very short time I became aware of the great resilience and dignity of the Mozambique people. They are exceptional people to have pulled themselves up so rapidly after such a long civil war. They have played by all the rules and they saw their economy growing by 10 per cent. in the space of two years. I think that it was the only country in the world to see its economy grow in such a way. These are people of determination and resilience, who, I believe, can overcome the terrible tragedy that has hit them.
I am a great supporter of the United Nations, but as the members of the Select Committee on International Development will know, we have criticised the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in respect of Macedonia and Albania, whereas we congratulated the World Food Programme, which planned for and responded adequately to the crisis. As a result of our criticism of the UNHCR, some things have improved. When we see an agency not doing what it should do, it is useful to put some questions to those who represent it, and we shall be able to do so here next week.
The cyclone has destroyed roads, rails, schoos and health centres. Thousands of people have no homes, thousands are in reception centres and thousands will be without food for a long time. Many people are looking for their relatives because they do not know whether they were lost in the floods or whether they are at a reception centre. There is much that will have to be done for Mozambique. The scale of immediate need is immense, with about 1 million people having left their homes and lost their livelihoods. Their food has gone, as has their crop of maize. Seeds and tools will be immediate needs once the land has dried out.
We must provide reconstruction aid swiftly to help rebuild Mozambique's infrastructure. The World Bank told us on the spot that it was prepared to give money for that purpose. I hope that all countries acknowledge the United Kingdom's lead in cancelling Mozambique's debt, which some other countries have followed.
In such circumstances, there are always many lessons to be learned. The international community must be able to give humanitarian assistance on time. That must be provided on the basis of need and not in the interests of media coverage. Similarly, political or economic interests should not be involved.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has heard me say that I think that the military has an important role to play in these disasters. When I saw the military at work in Macedonia and Albania, I recognised that it soon brought order to considerable chaos. When we are talking about disaster preparedness, there is a need for institutions and response mechanisms that can adequately address the likelihood of an increasing number of similar emergencies in the coming decades.
The Government deserve a great deal of credit for assisting Mozambique. Perhaps things might have been done better in some instances and faster in others, but the UK was the lead country in bringing help to people faced with devastation and loss of life. Credit must be given where it is due.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I am delighted to take up the remarks of my colleague on the Select Committee on International Development, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who speaks with the knowledge that she gained from the Committee's visit to Mozambique, Malawi, Zambia and South Africa. She knows what was going on. If matters had been left to my Committee, I am sure that we would have been able to advise the Secretary of State for International Development when we were in the area in the week of 20 to 24 February that helicopters were already needed and that there was a need for more.
Nobody can be happy about the loss of life in Mozambique. We do not know exactly what the figure is because we were not able to deploy sufficient helicopters


to get people to safety in the middle of an exceptionally large flood in the week of 26 February. Certainly the number of dead must run well into thousands. We must contrast that with the number of people who died in the equally exceptional flood that overtook Bangladesh only a year ago. There, we believe that only three lives were sacrificed. That is because Bangladesh has built up capacity both in its Government and non-governmental organisations, as has the international community, to anticipate floods and to get the right equipment into the right places at the right time to save people from the disasters that flooding can bring. That is not the position in Mozambique, and that is why there has been great loss of life.
We must turn to the calendar to address these matters sensibly and to recognise the problems to. which the hon. Member for Cynon Valley has drawn attention. The rain began exceptionally late in the season in Africa. However, it started with exceptional severity. It must be remembered that it began between 10 and 26 January. That led inevitably to flooding in the Limpopo and Zambezi valleys in the central provinces of Mozambique.
We should have appreciated—I do not think that we did—that that rain flowing down the rivers after an exceptionally dry and hot period would lead inevitably to serious difficulties in and around Maputo in the Limpopo estuary. However, the Department for International Development understood the position. It knew that some homes would be flooded and got into position with tents, blankets and food so as to be ready to help people inundated by floodwater. The supplies were in place and being distributed when the Select Committee visited.
During the week of 20 February, helicopters had already been deployed by the South African Government. They were fuelled by Norway and the Netherlands because President Mbeki said that he did not have enough fuel. Only two of the helicopters had winches to take people off the top of trees and out of the floods. We heard that there was not enough fuel for the following week. The Secretary of State for International Development stepped in and provided the fuel to keep the five helicopters flying.
My only criticism is of the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which on 12 February deployed to Maputo. It wrongly assessed the situation and severely underestimated it. It should have asked the international community—I am sure that the Department for International Development would have responded quickly that week—for further helicopter reinforcements to stand by for the possibility of additional flooding.
I am speaking with hindsight, which is easy, but I think that OCHA made a wrong assessment, and certainly a miscalculation, when the main team left. After launching an appeal on 23 February, it went home on 24 February. The difficulties were therefore underestimated, and we could have got more helicopters in place and saved more lives if that assessment had been more accurate. That is not easy to do, but the criticism has to be made.
For a fortnight, five helicopters were working. They were reinforced in the following week by five more helicopters, which the Department for International Development chartered. Three had winches to help remove people from flooded areas where their lives were at risk.
We were a bit late, but we were there, and DFID was very supportive. Only South Africa put more into the disaster than the Department. That remains the case. The Department's financial contribution has well overtaken that of South Africa. That was the position until the floods began to abate and we needed to get more helicopters in place to save more lives.
Let us consider the Ministry of Defence, which was late in assessing the position. If I understood the evidence that the Secretary of State for Defence gave the Select Committee on International Development correctly, planning started as late as 28 February and then accelerated fast. As the Secretary of State for International Development said, the Department did not have helicopters that could have reached the crisis area in Mozambique in time to save lives in the last week in February.
The helicopters arrived in the Antonov on 5 March, and RFA Fort George reached Beira on 11 March. Those helicopters and that support will help with the third phase of reconstruction and avoiding the serious threat of death through disease such as cholera, and lack of shelter.

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is making a careful and thoughtful case. I query only one point. When should the Ministry of Defence have begun the planning to which he referred?

Mr. Wells: The answer partly depended on the assessment of the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, but I would have hoped that, after the Ministry of Defence had realised that South African helicopters were deployed in the second week of February and that the South African armed forces knew that there was a crisis, it would have started planning. The Secretary of State sent out a recce party on his own initiative on 29 February. I should have liked it to have been sent a couple of weeks earlier.

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is Chairman of the responsible Select Committee. Did he raise the matter with the Ministry of Defence, or any Minister?

Mr. Wells: No, at the time, I was visiting Mozambique, Zambia and Malawi with the hon. Member for Cynon Valley. I was therefore not in a position to raise those matters personally. It should have occurred to someone in the Ministry of Defence to consider ways of supporting the Department for International Development.

Mr. Duncan Smith: If that is my hon. Friend's view, does he believe that the Ministry's action depends on it being requested to make that calculation and devising a plan? In his opinion, at what stage was the Ministry asked to do that?

Mr. Wells: That question goes to the heart of the problem that I would like to consider so that we can react better next time. The Ministry of Defence should fulfil the second objective to which the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) referred and support the Department for International Development in deploying military equipment when a humanitarian disaster has occurred. Rightly, the MOD is being built up and has an


impressive helicopter capacity. However, that capacity is expensive and not tuned to working in difficult circumstances that require an immediate response.

Clare Short: Getting to the truth of the matter is important, and I respect the hon. Gentleman's attempt to do that. However, there were two stages of the emergency. The big floods did not happen until 25 February. People might have sent helicopters, but they were not needed in the early stages. They are expensive and when people had simply gone to higher ground, they needed help but not through helicopters. When the massive flood occurred, and people were trapped up trees and on roofs, helicopters were essential to rescue them. That necessity did not arise until after the big flood and cyclone Eline on 25 February.

Mr. Wells: As the right hon. Lady said, the highly dangerous period was between 25 February and the following week. As she knows, the helicopters, albeit only two with winches, from South Africa were working in the previous week to rescue people. We should have deployed earlier. However, that depended on the assessment that had been made. That assessment was not available to the Secretary of State for International Development, or the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Blunt: We have military and air attaches in South Africa. In that period, they must have reported the deployment of the South African air force. That should have triggered some form of planning in the Ministry of Defence. Perhaps the Secretary of State can outline the telegram traffic from South Africa and say whether the defence attaché reported on it and what action the Ministry took.

Mr. Wells: That is the point that I am trying to make. The South Africans deployed their helicopters in the previous week and, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley described, were beginning to rescue people because the floods were continually rising. The crisis happened the following week. The Secretary of State for International Development was right to say that we had to get the helicopters there in a hurry and that we hired five additional helicopters as well as fuelling the South African helicopters.
The Ministry of Defence must be in a position to carry out its military and humanitarian tasks. There is a difference. The operation must be cost-effective. The MOD cannot make a military deployment and ask DFID to pay for it. As I understood the evidence that was given to the Select Committee, the military deployment involves a huge amount of support staff. The figure was 100, but the original suggestion was that 140 people would service two or three helicopters. The South African deployment had 10 support staff. As the Secretary of State for International Development told the Committee, all those people get in the way and need to be accommodated. They also need to have jabs before their departure from the United Kingdom to fulfil Ministry of Defence rules and regulations about deployment of personnel. All those matters delay deployment and add to the cost.
A problem has haunted the Ministry of Defence for 20 years. At base, it is a Treasury problem. When there is no emergency, officials and Ministers need to agree a

price for deploying military equipment in a humanitarian emergency. The calculations suggested to the Select Committee were absurd in a time of crisis. The Department for International Development needs to know where it stands and how much a helicopter costs before it asks the Ministry of Defence to intervene. We need to establish, both in this country and worldwide, a rapid reaction force to tackle humanitarian disasters and I support the suggestions of the hon. Member for Richmond Park.
In giving evidence to the Select Committee, the Secretary of State for International Development also said that we are too slow to organise ourselves internationally, and that OCHA is too slow to react. We have to put money in place to enable those agencies to take command because things can change when people take command. When the OCHA representative arrived on 29 February, he began to sort things out and made what was required clear to Ministry officials, who could then react much more quickly. That is now happening.
De-mining, and the reconstruction of roads, schools and hospitals, all of which have been lost, need to take place as rapidly as possible as the floods recede. I pay great compliment to the military personnel and the non-governmental organisations undertaking that difficult work. People have been displaced from their farms in their hundreds of thousands and they have to be helped back to plant their crops. They must be given seed, fertiliser and every assistance with planting so that they do not starve in the coming year. All the personnel of the RFA Fort George—who are well equipped to help with that in the Beira area and are, I understand, moving south to the River Save—will add hugely to Mozambique's ability to recover from this terrible disaster. They should be thoroughly congratulated and thanked for keeping Britain's name at the forefront of those who are willing and able to assist in these terrible tragedies.

Mr. Tony Worthington: It is a pleasure to follow the previous three speakers, who work from the basis of knowledge. They have respect for the people of Mozambique and have considered how the crisis developed. It is an enormous tribute to the Secretary of State and the Department for International Development that we expect it to be a world leader and top of the class in a former Portuguese colony more than 5,000 miles away.
Let us consider the chronology—I shall try to omit issues that have already been covered—which is of course easy to do with hindsight. However, no one has told me what will happen in Mozambique next week, which is what we need to know. The problem has not gone away and the rumours are that more rains are to follow. Remember, this is not a Mozambique problem, but a regional problem for southern Africa. When I was there with the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells)—the Chairman of the International Development Committee—and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), the concerns were the floods in South Africa and the suffering in Botswana. When we came back, we found out about the events in Madagascar. We did not know that the situation would be as it is in Mozambique, but we had to try to prepare for it.
Everyone is obsessed with helicopters, but they are not the issue. People on the ground who died from cholera or malaria or from starvation are just as dead as people who drowned in the trees. Far more people were in danger on the ground than up trees and we had to respond to that. Remember, the press went to Mozambique not because of the catastrophe, but because of the pictures that they could take. They had never had to photograph people in danger in trees before, so that was news, but the danger for the people of Mozambique—malaria, dysentery, cholera and diarrhoea—was on the ground. That was the crisis to which we had to respond and we did so.
The problem occurred on about 10 February. UNICEF appealed for $1.2 million. What did we do? Immediately, we were there with $400,000. Switzerland provided $65,000 and Norway $100,000. The Government wanted $2.7 million and we were in there with clean water, materials for schools, cooking utensils and tents. There was no call for more helicopters at that time. The UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the UN Disaster Assistance Committee said that the problem was fuel—the South African helicopters would run out by 20 February. What did we do? We provided the fuel, which was the right thing to do.
UNDAC wanted boats. What did we do? DFID sponsored a team of 38 people and 100 boats and life rafts from the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, United Kingdom fire and rescue services and the International Rescue Corps. We were asked for boats and we provided them because that was right at the time. Those were the first groups to go in from the outside world. By 18 February, responding to the assessed need on the ground, the United Kingdom and DFID had given and delivered twice as much as any other country to meet the threats of starvation and dysentery. That is financially and statistically correct, and that was our early reaction.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, on about 25 February the receding threat increased as flooding reoccurred. According to OCHA, the priority need from about 25 to 26 February was to rescue stranded people by air. That is when OCHA said that helicopters were the priority. I would like the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) to tell me whether I am wrong: according to the World Food Programme, three days later—after 26 and 27 February—there were 14 helicopters flying in Mozambique. Seven were from South Africa, fuelled by us, and seven, provided from local sources, were hired by OCHA. Is that correct?

Mr. Streeter: How many helicopters had winch capacity and the ability to lift people off trees?

Mr. Worthington: I do not know the answer, but it was given earlier by others. There were 14 helicopters, some with winches, flying and delivering food. Food can be delivered without winches and every one of those helicopters was supported by DFID. I shall resume my seat to allow the hon. Gentleman to tell me whether that is correct.

Mr. Robathan: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) finished his speech?

Mr. Worthington: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I take it that I am correct. One country—the United Kingdom—

was responsible for every helicopter flying in Mozambique at that time. The rest of the world community failed to find or fund helicopters, which is extraordinary, and we funded the 14 in the air. That number rose to 50, and we have added four Puma and four Sea King helicopters to what we provided earlier. We are now responsible for the funding of 22 helicopters, because of DFID.
We intimated that we would make available substantial money for the poverty reduction programme in Mozambique and gave the lead on bilateral debt cancellation. I should like to hear from the Conservatives again. Does the hon. Member for South-West Devon agree that the leadership on cancellation of bilateral debt came from the United Kingdom?

Mr. Robathan: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Robathan.

Mr. Worthington: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie must not keep jumping up and down. If nobody is seeking to intervene on him, the Chair is entitled to assume that he has finished his speech and call another speaker.

Mr. Worthington: Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I like to give hon. Members the chance to contradict what I am saying, but I note that they have not done so. We have given, and other countries are following us on bilateral debt cancellation.
The response by other organisations was not as good as it should have been, and two of them in particular should examine their performance. No one says that it is an easy job. Since October 1999 there have been 30 natural disasters world wide, many of which hon. Members will not have heard about, and with which OCHA dealt in an unspectacular way. For example, not many people know about the snowstorms in Mongolia, but that was a natural disaster with which OCHA dealt. Its job is to play the leading role in the co-ordination of international emergency assistance following natural disasters. One can see from the early OCHA press releases and bulletins that it did not play that role in the early stages of the Mozambique emergency. It was only when Mr. Ross Mountain visited the area on 29 February that the quality of the response started improving. OCHA should have played a leading role in identifying the need for helicopters and getting them to the area.
There was a need also for heavy-lift planes—which has been shown in emergency after emergency—but the western world again failed miserably. Why did the MOD have to go to a Russian commercial concern to hire an Antonov to transport helicopters? Where were NATO and the Americans with their heavy-lift facilities? After all the fuss, suddenly six C130 aircraft have been made available. The key aircraft is the C17, which can move anything, but none has been operating. We should ask the


Americans and NATO why facilities to transport helicopters and other goods cannot automatically be made available.

Mr. Streeter: I can now tell the hon. Gentleman that, of the 14 helicopters flying in the second week, only five had winch facilities. Does the hon. Gentleman think that was enough?

Mr. Worthington: Of course not. The ideal would be 14 helicopters with 14 winches—but while the UK found 14 helicopters, the rest of the world found none. As in Macedonia and Albania, a UN organisation failed to lead in the initial stage of a crisis. In the case of Macedonia and Albania, UNHCR failed to provide leadership at an early stage and it has accepted our criticism. Authoritative leadership was not evident either in OCHA.
ECHO is the European Union's alleged emergency response body in respect of humanitarian affairs. I say, as a supporter of the EU, that ECHO has to sharpen its act. ECHO did not feature, as a co-ordinating body, in any of the bulletins and statements about who was doing what in Mozambique. At an early stage, ECHO gave 1 million euros in an unspecified way—just cash, which was not a sensible thing to do. It should have worked with OCHA and other bodies to get the money to where it was needed immediately, for a specific purpose.
At the end of February and beginning of March, European Commissioner Poul Nielson visited the area; suddenly, aid of 25 million euros was to be made available. That response was inadequate because the money would not have gone to Mozambique. It may only arrive there months after the crisis began. Those two organisations ought to examine their performance.
I am proud of the role that DFID played and of the UK's improved response to emergencies. I remember the promise of aid to Somalia by the Minister at the time. Eight months later, that aid had not turned up. It was alleged that it had reached Somalia but it was stuck in a warehouse in Mombassa. Throughout the whole of 1995, no Government Minister made a statement about Ruanda. We stood on the sidelines during the worst humanitarian disaster of recent times. The then Government's response was to turn their back on Ruanda and pretend that disaster was not happening.
We have now a first-rate Department, brilliantly led, with a co-ordinated response that is leading the world. I am proud of that.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me a second time. I do not agree with everything that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said, but I am the fourth member in a row of the Select Committee to speak. It is a dreadful Committee because there is a depressing amount of consensus among its members. We all get on well together. When everybody agrees in politics, usually something is terribly the matter.
I first visited Mozambique in 1974, before the Portuguese revolution. The Government of Mozambique are doing a good job but it is patronising to say, "Poor things. They went to the Soviet Union and returned with a

Marxist-Leninist policy that they pursued to terrible effect from 1974 until the mid-1980s." Those concerned must share responsibility. They are adults. We must not patronise them. Machel and his Government were dreadful, whatever was done by Renamo—who was equally dreadful.
I visited Mozambique with the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) in the first phase of the floods, which were described as the worst for at least 50 years. We saw terrible devastation, including the only proper road north completely taken away. The railway lines—the lifeblood for moving goods around the country—were covered in sand or had been washed away, but we also saw astonishing resilience among the people of Mozambique. They are used to flooding, which is part of the natural scheme of things for them. When the land floods, it becomes much more fertile. This time, the inhabitants had lost their homes and roads but there was still remarkable resilience, to which I pay tribute.
After we left, the situation grew very much worse. We have all seen the dreadful pictures and I will not dwell on them. I agree with the Secretary of State that there is anecdotal evidence of global warming. El Nino—or the girl child, as they call it—has brought terrible devastation. There have been droughts in Zimbabwe and Kenya; now there is flooding worse than in living memory or on record. That matter should be debated at length at a later date.
We met the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Mozambique, who were both, in my opinion, good people; but when we interviewed the Secretary of State it was depressing to learn that medium-lift helicopters were already available for charter in-country. I blame the Government for much but not for failing to know about that before the Government of Mozambique did. The capacity in Mozambique is limited and the necessary structures do not exist. Nevertheless, the Government of Mozambique must take responsibility. There has been much criticism of that country's president for flying over the disaster area and not doing anything but, in general, I will be onside with the Government of Mozambique.
Zimbabwe, next door to Mozambique, has a large helicopter fleet in its armed forces. I am not sure how many helicopters it has but I understand they number at least 24, of which three were available for dealing with flooding in Zimbabwe and two for ferrying the press and the president around—while the remainder were engaged in fighting a particularly unpleasant war in the Congo. Again, I deplore cross-party consensus, but there is clearly a problem—a problem that needs to be sorted out—when a Government with such a tragedy on their doorstep can waste money and lives by causing disruption in another country.

Mr. Wells: Malawi, which has two helicopters, gave 50 per cent. of its helicopter force to help in the emergency.

Mr. Robathan: I did not know that, but it is a good point.
South Africa was doing well in this regard—it was South African helicopters that we saw initially—although it threatened to stop flying them because it did not have the necessary funds. South Africa is a poor country, although not everyone there is poor, especially gold miners—at least, Anglo-American gold miners.
The Secretary of State will be astonished to learn that I support the Department's long-term contribution to combating poverty in Mozambique. I admire the work that we saw there—although we could not see it all because we could not fly north. I welcome the support given to the HALO trust. At the risk of destroying the trust's standing with the Secretary of State, I must tell her that I am a trustee. I hope that that will not influence her decisions when she is allocating money. The trust is the largest de-mining organisation in the world, and is doing enormously good work in Mozambique and elsewhere.

Mr. Roger Gale: Like my hon. Friend, I visited Mozambique fairly recently—just before Christmas. The problem of mines is impressed graphically on anyone who goes there: evidence of maiming and death is all around. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State has done very well, but when I questioned her a couple of weeks ago and suggested that the floods would have moved the remaining land mines, making agriculture dangerous, she appeared to dismiss my suggestion.
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a role for our sappers in the aftermath of the floods? Could they not speed up the process of de-mining and establish where the mines are now?

Mr. Robathan: I raised that issue with the Secretary of State for Defence on Tuesday. I think there is a role for the sappers, and I suspect that they would enjoy the training, if they did not all catch malaria.

Clare Short: I hope that I did not dismiss the question asked by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). 1 said that we had been asked by the Mozambique Government to clear Zambesia province, and that it was virtually clear and unaffected. HALO, in fact, led on that. A United Nations team is currently trying to identify the areas to which the mines have moved. We tend to use the trust because it contains a number of former military personnel, and we can use it more flexibly and more cheaply than we could use our armed forces.

Mr. Robathan: I think everyone would agree that there is a problem with mines, which has been exacerbated by the floods. Those of us who have seen pictures know that huge chunks of land have been washed away, and on the land were some anti-personnel mines.
I also support—this is awful—the Department's work with institutions, particularly its work with customs out there. I thought that that was very positive.
We met two former Army officers, Gilbert Greenall and someone called, I believe, Howard-Williams. They were working for OCHA; they were civilians, but had been drafted in as replacements by the Department. Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, they seemed to be doing very well and to be creating some co-ordination in the face of what might otherwise have been chaos. The work of the Department's personnel based in Maputo also struck me as positive and sensible. I congratulate those personnel—it would be too easy to allow them to be blamed when others are accused.
I pay a depressingly traditional but nevertheless heartfelt tribute to the military personnel—particularly those in the RAF—who are doing what certainly appears

to be a very good job. Having served in the forces, I know that most of the personnel would have been longing to get out there. They are very keen to help, like the South African airmen we saw. I am delighted that helicopters and boats are now in the regions.
Helicopters, however, will remain an issue for some time—weeks, perhaps months—until the infrastructure is repaired. Although we may not be rescuing people from trees, there are no roads, so stuff cannot be shifted by lorry; any movement of goods must be by air. Mozambique will need a great deal of help in rebuilding its infrastructure, its economy and its agriculture.
There is a problem in the Government's reaction to the crisis—a problem relating to joined-up government. The Secretary of State is a genial and well-meaning person, but those of us who were in the Chamber to hear her speech detected a definite problem between her and the Minister for the Armed Forces. I understand that the problem goes back a long way; there may be some personal antipathy.

Clare Short: I saw the reports in the press as well. They are entirely untrue. I said in my speech that we had been in touch with the MOD, and that it had said that it had no assets within 3,000 miles. I think that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces expressed surprise at that, but there was no difference between us. We would have discussed the matter, but my hon. Friend had to speak in the Chamber.
The fact that reports appear in the press does not mean that they are correct. There has been no argument of any kind between my hon. Friend and me—that is the truth.

Mr. Robathan: I understand that on the streets of Birmingham people say that there has always been antipathy between the Secretary of State and her hon. Friend, going back to left-wing problems in the days when the right hon. Lady may have been of a slightly different political hue. However, the right hon. Lady has denied the reports and I do not question her integrity—although I note that she was quoted in a newspaper a couple of weeks ago as saying, "I can speak out in Cabinet, but the penalty is that I am not allowed to speak out in public as a result."

Clare Short: That is my ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Robathan: Indeed, but—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already had words with hon. Members about sedentary comments.

Mr. Robathan: I was intending to make a point about one or two of the things the Secretary of State said earlier.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) pointed out, the amount of aid appears to be falling. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to tell us that it is not falling from a proposed £76.5 million to £70 million over the next two years.
The real crisis in Mozambique has nothing to do with flooding; it is to do with HIV and AIDS. The black death is stalking Africa, at least sub-Saharan Africa. I know that the Secretary of State is aware of that, because her Department does a great deal.
Thousands have been killed in the floods. Mozambique has a population of more than 18 million, of whom probably 4 million are infected with HIV, although it is difficult to tell.

Dr. Tonge: The black death was, in fact, the bubonic plague, which stalked Europe in mediaeval times. If the hon. Gentleman was referring to the colour of the skins of people who suffer from AIDS, let me remind him that the disease affects those of all colours.

Mr. Robathan: I am rather surprised by that intervention. I think the analogy with the black death is very valuable, because this disease is likely to have the same impact on sub-Saharan Africa as the black death had in Europe in the 14th century. As the hon. Lady must know, Africans, regrettably, have been particularly susceptible for a number of reasons. That is well known. If she does not want to call it the black death she can call it something else, but I think that "black death" is an emotive and analogous description.
Approximately 4 million people in Mozambique will probably die of HIV/-AIDS in the next five or six years, and the rate is increasing. We have inadequate data, but the infection rate is horrendous. We do have data for 1994 and 1996. In Maputo and Chimoio, both rates doubled—to nearly 20 per cent. in Chimoio. If that can happen in two years, God knows what the situation is now. As the Government know, the position is similar in Mozambique.
Why is the rate rising to such an extent? Access to health care in inadequate. It is hopeless as there is no infrastructure to convey it to people. The provision of drugs is not the main problem, although such supplies would be helpful. The main problems are ignorance, resistance to condom use for a number of reasons and astonishing promiscuity, linked with poor hygiene and a high rate of sexually transmitted disease. It is behaviour that needs to change. Education is desperately needed in that regard.
Elsewhere in Africa, the situation is also extremely bad. I shall not go into all the details, but this is a problem that the world must face. It is so enormous, however, that the world is turning its back on it.
The impact has a disproportionate effect on key members of society, such as teachers and doctors who have travelled more. The result is schools without teachers and hospitals without doctors. [Interruption.] I notice that there is certain amount of pressure on me to sit down. It is a responsibility of the indigenous Governments, but it is important that we direct our response more towards that enormous crisis than towards anything else. Millions there will be affected by that, whereas the flooding crisis is, proportionately, affecting very few.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I call Mr. Iain Duncan Smith—[Interruption.]

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not being ready to rise. I was expecting you to call someone else.
I pay fulsome tribute to the volunteers and members of the armed forces whom the Secretary of State mentioned. Conservative Members pay tribute to them for their hard

work and the physical risk that they run. They are saving lives and no one is shooting at them, but that does not mean that, during those dangerous activities, they may not lose their own life.
This is not a witch-hunt. I wish to make it clear—the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) seems to have been taken wrongly by the Secretary of State—that the objective is to figure out what went wrong, so that lessons can be learned and so that, next time, it is possible that things can go right.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) made a typically knowledgeable speech and raised some important points. She said that, in almost all these circumstances, the military has a big role to play. I agree. With operations of that scale, it is almost inconceivable that a national effort will not at some stage involve the military, at least discussing with it how to run the operation.
The lesson that the hon. Lady mentioned is that some things could have been done better. She said that Britain had taken the lead. If we look at the figures on the amount of aid, there is no question but that Britain is the most significant player in Mozambique. No one criticises that. We are all saying that that badge of honour should be worn by this country. Had the whole operation stopped in the early stages, there is no question but that it would rightfully have been worn by the Government, but that is not the whole question.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, made a good speech. He said "We were a bit late, but we were there." That is not a bad comment, but some of the real criticism stems from the fact that we were a bit late, certainly in the second half of the operation.
My hon. Friend maintains—I am interested in the matter—that helicopters were needed at least from 20 February. The Secretary of State for International Development probably agreed with that, although I did not hear her say it. My hon. Friend said that the early response was good. Again, I believe that that is important. The question is about the second half of the whole project: how good was that? He was right to say that OCHA should be criticised for leaving the area early, given what happened after it went.
My hon. Friend said that it was a Treasury problem. There is something in that. He was critical of the MOD. I am not entirely in agreement. I do not fully agree that it bears even 50 per cent. of the blame; I think that it bears far less, if any.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington)—I think that that is how the constituency is pronounced. [Interruption.] My apologies, I did not know how to pronounce it. It is not as bad as the pronunciation of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who persists in mispronouncing Scots names.

Mr. Worthington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Duncan Smith: I will not.
The hon. Gentleman dealt with the early part and glossed over the later critical period. He dealt with the early aid in detail and said that it was well done but,


when he got to the critical bit about the MOD's involvement and what happened, he quickly glossed over that. I do not criticise him for doing that—I would if I were sitting on the Back Benches—but that is not the whole answer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) talked about communication problems and said that there should have been better communication between the Departments. I agree. He is fundamentally right. I was in the area at the time that Samora Machel was—I am tempted to say it—on the throne in Mozambique. As we all know, the running of the country at that stage was a complete and unmitigated disaster. Obviously, a number of parties bear responsibility for that.
Much of what we see is a result of that, but we also need to ask what happened to those from Zimbabwe. Where were they? The answer is that they were fighting a war somewhere, probably protecting their president's investments in another country. The shame that they carry is the shame that happens when people get their priorities wrong. I hope that they sort that out in due course.
Questions arise; that is the key point. The Secretary of State for Defence should answer some specific questions. The problem is that the impression is that the Secretary of State for International Development and the Defence Secretary did not engage in conversation or discussion about the matter at an early enough stage.
I place most of the blame for that on the Secretary of State for International Development, because I do not think that she grasped the significance of the MOD from the outset. It behoves her to contact the MOD and to say that it is required. If she had said after the Thursday Cabinet meeting just before the weekend in question, "Come over here. What can we do? What can you do for me? What options are there on the table?", I have no doubt that the MOD would have responded immediately with a range of options. That is the nature of the MOD, but it was not asked those questions. That is the key issue.
For example, we have the wonderful mess over exactly when the Department for International Development was meant to have contacted the MOD. I read with great interest the verbatim account of the Select Committee proceedings. Mr. Holden, the official, was asked when the contact happened. He said:
I think it was 25/26th at about 8 o'clock at night.
There is the problem, because we are not certain even when the MOD was contacted. The MOD's version was different. It said that it was
On Saturday 26 February at around 2 o'clock,
so we have a difference of a day. No one seems to have a record of exactly when the Department contacted the MOD.
The other important point is that the Department asked the wrong question. It seems that the only question that it asked the MOD was: "What have you got in the area?", to which the answer came, "What we have is 3,000 miles away and is on board a ship." That is a straight answer to a straight question. I have no criticism of that. Surely the question should have been, "What could you do to project helicopters down to Mozambique to put in some support?" Had the Department asked that question, it might have got a responsible answer, but it did not.
Another question is, exactly when was the Secretary of State informed about the answer from the MOD? She said:
that was my understanding from advice that I received from the Ministry this morning—[Official Report, 28 February 2000; Vol. 345, c. 23.]
However, she told the Select Committee:
The answer on the Saturday was that they—
the MOD—
had nothing within 3,000 miles.
If the Department knew on the Saturday that the ship, which may have been available, was 3,000 miles away, why did it not decide, there and then, whether it required it to be moved? Had it taken the decision then, the ship would have been on station pretty close to the time that the Department finally had to ship the helicopters down for the following weekend. That is the key point. Early information was there, but nothing was done.
Then we got into the unseemly dispute about money. Again, it is unseemly for the MOD to have to go into a bidding war with the Department for International Development over how much the operation could cost, but we have to be slightly fair to the MOD—I know that the Secretary of State will be worried by that comment: such operations cost money. What the figures are is a secondary issue. The MOD said that it would cost so much. The Secretary of State simply noted that and walked away.
A decision should have been made at that point—if money was not available, why did not Ministers immediately get on the telephone to the Prime Minister or to the Chancellor and say, "This is the problem. This is what it will cost to deal with it, but the Department cannot afford it. Can we cover that cost?"? Perhaps the Secretary of State for Defence himself could have done that. The point is that DFID Ministers knew that they could do that. The Ministry of Defence offered them an option, but they did not take it. That is the reality, as shown by the evidence.
The Prime Minister must have known about the situation the week before the problems became apparent. Although I appreciate that Thursday Cabinet meetings now last for only about 20 minutes—the Prime Minister does not need to know what everyone in Cabinet thinks, because he thinks it for them—the Prime Minister must have already known about the situation. He must also have approved plans for Britain to start taking serious action in Mozambique.
The Prime Minister was supposed to be taking a direct interest in the matter, but where was he in dealing with the subsequent problems? Why did he not say, "Pack up the arguments. Here's the solution—send the helicopters. That is what you're going to do." I suspect, however, that no one even bothered to contact him about that, and his advisers did not want him involved in it because it was looking a bit nasty and shabby. There was no Executive decision-making.
I believe that the MOD was more sinned against than sinning in the matter. Eventually, the Department was asked for information. The Department provided that information, but there was no response to it until it was too late. DFID bears very much of the blame for that delay. Let us not beat around the bush: for three to four days, there was delay in which no decisions were taken on what to do.
I should also like to know from the Defence Secretary—as the Minister for the Armed Forces is sitting on the Treasury Bench next to him—whether the spat between the Minister and the Secretary of State for International Development that occurred during the statement by the Secretary of State for International Development on Monday 28 February was caused by the fact that DFID had probably already received a list of options from the MOD, although DFID had not directly requested those options? On Monday 28 February, was not DFID provided with those options, which were developed by the Minister for the Armed Forces? DFID must have received the options. If it had not received them, it could not possibly have asked questions, on Tuesday 29 February, about the figures.

Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend may be right in his analysis of events, but I think that the delay occurred partly because of the personal antipathy—which has been denied—between the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) and the Secretary of State for International Development, and partly because of the Labour party's history in Birmingham. Although the Minister for the Armed Forces says that such an antipathy is rubbish, in the Birmingham Labour party, they talk of little else.

Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend has made that point absolutely clear.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon and hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, if the Secretary of State for International Development wants to think of this inquiry into the matter as a witch hunt and to take it personally, she may do as she pleases. However, we have to know what went wrong. The buck must stop with her if the Government had decided that Mozambique was a priority; if DFID chose not to tell the Secretary of State the answers that it received from the MOD; and if the MOD provided requested information, but that information was not acted on. She can delegate as much as she likes, but, ultimately, delegation is only an extension of the responsibility of the person at the top—she is the person who makes the final decision.
Far too often, the Secretary of State for International Development was kept out of the loop. Therefore, far too often she failed to take a timely decision. Surely she could have asked the MOD earlier for a range of options, and it would have provided it. I do not believe that the MOD should automatically present such options. If she really thought that she needed some options, she should have asked for them earlier, so that she could have acted more quickly.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon said, DFID tried to get out of the situation by spin, counter-spin and re-presenting the sums that it would pump into Mozambique. Again, however, it was only a silly game in which DFID tried to gain credit, whereas the Department was without credit in the matter.
Today, all we heard from the Secretary of State was a history lesson, followed by an appalling geography lesson, yet we want to know the real lessons to be learned. Had those lessons been learned earlier, it could have saved the lives that were lost because of delay.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I should like to start by making some straightforward, but fundamental points which are relevant to the debate, not least because there has been a complete contrast between the two speeches by the Opposition Front Benchers and every other speech in the debate.
The hon. Members for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) have failed to get any hon. Member, even any other Conservative Member, to speak in support of their motion. Neither the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) nor the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) spoke to the motion, but I leave that to the internal management of the Conservative party to resolve.
The fundamental points are these. First, the United Kingdom's contribution to the relief effort in Mozambique has been, and continues to be, a success. Both military and civilian personnel are making a real difference there.
Secondly, there has been no dispute between the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence in putting that contribution together. The two Departments have worked together to ensure that, as the crisis developed, the United Kingdom's response was, at each stage, the most appropriate and most effective available.
Thirdly—despite much media excitement, and the forlorn efforts of the hon. Member for South-West Devon to generate some excitement in this debate—there was no question of haggling over costs at the expense of delivering the assistance required. It is entirely right and completely consistent with the practice of previous Governments that the Department with the policy lead should make the judgment about how best to allocate the available resources.
Given the nature of the debate, I shall try to set out the sequence of events in some detail. The House has heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development that her Department was involved in the flood relief efforts in January, from the moment that they began. That has been confirmed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) in an excellent, thoughtful and well-considered speech. I thank her particularly for her comments on the contribution made by the armed forces.
A massive surge of water, over the weekend of Saturday 26 February, caused the situation to deteriorate still further. Although further flooding had been anticipated, its sheer scale took everyone by surprise, including, of course, the people of Mozambique. It would also have taken the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford by surprise. I was a little surprised that he criticised the Ministry of Defence for failing to plan before that date, because at no stage when I gave evidence to the International Development Committee did he raise that matter with me. Moreover, the criticism that he made dealt with a completely different time frame from the one complained about by the Opposition spokesmen.

Mr. Blunt: What advice was the right hon. Gentleman receiving from the defence attaché at the British high commission in South Africa and from the high commission in South Africa on the course of the crisis and on the involvement of the South African air force,


which by that stage was already flying in Mozambique, supported and paid for by the Nordic countries? At some point, we took over the responsibility of paying for that.

Mr. Hoon: The point that I shall be making, in response to the criticism by the Opposition spokesmen, is that the acute need for helicopters followed on from the flood surge that occurred over that weekend. Therefore, although we were receiving advice about the general situation, it confirmed the type of advice that we heard about today from my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley. As I said, the judgment on the type of response was necessary was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development.

Mr. Wells: Of course the flood was greater than any of us foresaw. However, the fact is that surges of water down rivers such as the Limpopo do not happen overnight. The surge was caused by the very considerable rainfall inland. As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) said, the Committee was in the middle of that, and we knew that the surge was coming down. It should have been anticipated.

Mr. Hoon: I could have given the hon. Gentleman a fuller answer if he had made that criticism when I appeared before the Select Committee the other day. I feel bound to point out that he did not raise it when he had that opportunity.
I was trying to set out the sequence of events. The Department for International Development approached the Ministry of Defence and others to ask whether the United Kingdom had any people or equipment in the region that could be of assistance. Unfortunately, we did not. The Department was told that the nearest appropriate people and equipment were 3,000 miles away in the Persian gulf. As a result, the Department for International Development continued to look locally for assistance. It successfully guaranteed the funding to ensure that South African air force helicopters could continue saving people, as well as hiring other helicopters nearby that could commence operations immediately.
At the same time as the Department for International Development was searching southern Africa for more practical assistance, the Ministry of Defence looked at whether there was anything that could be done from further afield. On Monday 28 February, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces asked officials to look into the possible options to help further the effort already being made by the Department for International Development.
Officials were able to identify three suitable options: first, four Puma helicopters with support personnel and equipment; secondly, a detachment of Royal Marines with hovercraft and boats; and, thirdly, the RFA Fort George, which was part of a naval task group operating in the Gulf. At the earliest opportunity, Ministry of Defence officials held discussions with their colleagues in the Department for International Development to establish whether the deployment of any of those assets might be of assistance.

Mr. David Heath: The right hon. Gentleman knows the value that I put on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships.

Does he agree that the enhanced role that the RFA could play in humanitarian relief should be considered? Will he look in particular at the future role of RFA Fort Grange?

Mr. Hoon: I agree that we can use those ships in that role, but one of the dilemmas that we faced on the deployment of Fort George—it would have been the same for the deployment of any ship—is that it would take nine days to get where it was needed. A certain amount of clairvoyance is needed to determine whether the problem will be the same after nine days. That has to be taken into account.
Work on those options was carried forward urgently. Contingency plans were drawn up, personnel were placed on standby, equipment was prepared, an Antonov aircraft was reserved and a reconnaissance team was deployed to Mozambique in advance of a final decision. Those are all standard military procedures, designed to maximise readiness and avoid delay.
Given the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), it might be helpful if I explain why we decided to hire a commercially chartered aircraft to transport the helicopters to the region. It was the only aircraft big enough and readily available to do the job as quickly as we wanted. We decided that the use of the RAF's C130 aircraft, which was mentioned during the debate, was not appropriate, because it would have taken longer to dismantle the helicopters, longer to fly them to Mozambique and longer to reassemble them at the other end. It would also have required a fleet of aircraft—one for each Puma helicopter and another one for additional equipment. That answers my hon. Friend's point. I look forward to his vigorous support in ensuring that the United Kingdom has its own heavy lift capacity in due course.
Despite the lack of suitable heavy lift aircraft, it is important to emphasise that the British Government were the first from outside the immediate region to have military helicopters operational and contributing to the relief effort. Where, therefore, was the delay that people are complaining about?

Mr. Duncan Smith: The answer to that lies in an earlier point that the Secretary of State made. Will he confirm that the Department for International Development knew the location of the nearest Ministry of Defence resources by Saturday and that the Secretary of State for International Development should have known that the Minister for the Armed Forces was already working on alternative proposals, including flying out helicopters?

Mr. Hoon: I have set out the sequence of events clearly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development rightly wanted to ensure that helicopters were available locally as quickly as possible. That inevitably meant that she was going to look for helicopters in the immediate vicinity. When the problem became clearly more serious than was initially anticipated and no further helicopters were available locally, it was appropriate to look further afield. The hon. Gentleman knows the enormous effort involved in transporting helicopters from the United Kingdom to Mozambique. That was the sequence of events and that is why the decisions taken at each stage were right.
Once the Department for International Development had satisfied the requirement for immediate assistance in the region, it was then important to consider other, longer-term actions. The decision to deploy the RFA Fort George was made on Thursday 2 March, in the knowledge that it would take around 9 days—3,000 miles of sailing—to get there. However, in advance of a final decision, the captain of the Fort George had undertaken preparatory work to ensure that the ship would be properly equipped in the event of a deployment. The ship was already heading south. It is a specialist supply vessel with five Sea King helicopters on board. It was decided that their greater radius of operations and their mobile operating platform would give the ship an advantage over ground-based helicopters, particularly in the event of serious flooding in northern Mozambique. That and the ship's load of 1.5 million litres of aviation fuel give it a vital role in the longer-term relief effort. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that that was an example of forward thinking and planning for the likely situation in Mozambique once the waters had receded. Conservative Members should congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development on anticipating the problems that were likely to arise.

Mr. Robathan: Would not HMS Illustrious have been faster and a better platform for helicopters?

Mr. Hoon: Fort George is part of the task group that also has the aircraft carrier involved with it. It is a supply vessel and was packed with food, fuel and water and was able to call in to take on extra medicines. That is the equipment that my right hon. Friend judged would be vital once the flood waters began to recede.
There has been a great deal of comment about costs, but also a great deal of wilful misunderstanding of the reality. Hon. Members understand that the Department for International Development takes the lead on the Government's response to any overseas natural disaster and its budget reflects that. The defence budget is approved by the House for carrying out defence tasks. It does not contain provision for overseas disaster relief. It is therefore entirely appropriate for the Department for International Development to make a judgment about the best use of its funds for disaster relief at an appropriate stage in any disaster.
To enable the Department for International Development to make an informed decision, the Ministry of Defence had to provide an outline of the estimated costs. The Chairman of the International Development Committee accepted that point when I gave evidence. It is accepted practice for any Department to charge the Department with the funding and the policy lead the additional no-loss costs of providing equipment and personnel for disaster relief operations.
There is no doubt that the armed forces can make a significant contribution to disaster relief operations. It is clear that the public expect well trained, well organised military personnel to be able to deploy quickly and effectively to assist in such situations. However, the fact remains that substantial costs are involved in deploying personnel and equipment over distances of several

thousand miles. In many cases it will be quicker and cheaper for the Department for International Development to locate and fund sources of assistance from nearby countries. It is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development to consider all the options and judge which offers the most timely and effective response.
The UK has deployed more military helicopters and got them from further afield into the region more quickly than any other nation. That is clear testimony to the determination and self-discipline of the crew and support personnel in preparing the aircraft, the equipment and themselves for deployment at the earliest opportunity.
I should also mention the excellent work of the South African air force. During the initial rescue effort, its air crews worked flat out for days on end and saved many thousands of lives. They are a great credit to their country. We have particular reason to be grateful to the South Africans. Without their assistance on the ground and their permission to use their base for maintenance, we would not have been able to participate in the international relief effort as quickly or as effectively.
In conclusion, the facts are that the UK has delivered the largest bilateral contribution of support on the ground, that the Department for International Development responded immediately once the scale of the catastrophe had become apparent and that only South Africa and Malawi had helicopters operating there before those from the UK. We have provided more military, and funded more civilian, helicopters than anyone else. We have people here and in Mozambique who have worked and who continue to work around the clock to provide assistance to people in real need under very challenging circumstances.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 310.

Division No.115]
[4 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Amess, David
Evans, Nigel


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Faber, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Fabricant, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Fallon, Michael


Bercow, John
Flight, Howard


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Blunt, Crispin
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brady, Graham
Fox, Dr Liam


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fraser, Christopher


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gale, Roger


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gibb, Nick


Butterfill, John
Gill, Christopher


Cash, William
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Gray, James



Green, Damian


Chope, Christopher
Grieve, Dominic


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hammond, Philip



Hawkins, Nick


Collins, Tim
Hayes, John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Heald, Oliver


Cran, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Curry, Rt Hon David
Horam, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Duncan, Alan
Jack, Rt Hon Michael






Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jenkin, Bernard
Robathan, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)



Ruffley, David


Key, Robert
St Aubyn, Nick


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shepherd, Richard


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Soames, Nicholas


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Lansley, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Letwin, Oliver
Streeter, Gary


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Swayne, Desmond


Lidington, David
Syms, Robert


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Loughton, Tim
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Luff, Peter
Townend, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tredinnick, David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Trend, Michael


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Tyrie, Andrew


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Walter, Robert


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wardle, Charles


Madel, Sir David
Waterson, Nigel


Major, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


Malins, Humfrey
Whittingdale, John


Maples, John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Wilkinson, John


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Willetts, David


Moss, Malcolm
Wilshire, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Norman, Archie
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Yeo, Tim


Ottaway, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Page, Richard



Pickles, Eric
Tellers for the Ayes:


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Mr. John Randall and


Prior, David
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Ainger, Nick
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Buck, Ms Karen


Alexander, Douglas
Burden, Richard


Allan, Richard
Burgon, Colin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Butler, Mrs Christine


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Ashton, Joe
Cable, Dr Vincent


Atkins, Charlotte
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Austin, John
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Baker, Norman
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ballard, Jackie
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Banks, Tony



Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Battle, John
Cann, Jamie


Bayley, Hugh
Caplin, Ivor


Beard, Nigel
Casale, Roger


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cawsey, Ian


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Chidgey, David


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clapham, Michael


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)



Bennett, Andrew F
Clark Paul (Gillingham)


Benton, Joe
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clelland, David


Berry, Roger
Clwyd, Ann


Best, Harold
Coaker, Vernon


Betts, Clive
Coffey, Ms Ann


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Coleman, Iain


Blears, Ms Hazel
Colman, Tony


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Connarty, Michael


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cooper, Yvette


Brake, Tom
Corbett, Robin





Corbyn, Jeremy
Illsley, Eric


Corston, Jean
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cotter, Brian
Jamieson, David


Cousins, Jim
Jenkins, Brian


Cox, Tom
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cranston, Ross
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Crausby, David



Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cummings, John
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)



Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)



Kelly, Ms Ruth


Dawson, Hilton
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Denham, John
Khabra, Piara S


Dowd, Jim
Kidney, David


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kilfoyle, Peter


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Laxton, Bob


Ennis, Jeff
Lepper, David


Etherington, Bill
Leslie, Christopher


Fearn, Ronnie
Levitt, Tom


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Fisher, Mark
Linton, Martin


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Flint, Caroline
Lock, David


Flynn, Paul
Love, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gapes, Mike
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gardiner, Barry
McDonnell, John


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McIsaac, Shona


Gerrard, Neil
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gibson, Dr Ian
McNamara, Kevin


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McNulty, Tony


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mactaggart, Fiona


Godsiff, Roger
McWalter, Tony


Goggins, Paul
McWilliam, John


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Grogan, John
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hain, Peter
Maxton, John


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Merron, Gillian


Hancock, Mike
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hanson, David
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Miller, Andrew


Harris, Dr Evan
Moffatt, Laura


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Healey, John
Moore, Michael


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hepburn, Stephen
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Heppell, John



Hill, Keith
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Hinchliffe, David
Mullin, Chris


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hood, Jimmy
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hope, Phil
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hopkins, Kelvin
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Howells, Dr Kim
O'Hara, Eddie


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Olner, Bill


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hurst, Alan
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hutton, John
Pearson, Ian


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pendry, Tom






Perham, Ms Linda
Southworth, Ms Helen


Pickthall, Colin
Spellar, John


Pike, Peter L
Squire, Ms Rachel


Plaskitt, James
Steinberg, Gerry


Pollard, Kerry
Stevenson, George


Pond, Chris
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pope, Greg
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pound, Stephen
Stoate, Dr Howard


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Prosser, Gwyn
Stringer, Graham


Purchase, Ken
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Stunell, Andrew


Quinn, Lawrie
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rammell, Bill



Rapson Syd
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rendel, David
Timms, Stephen


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Tipping, Paddy


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Todd, Mark


Rogers, Allan
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Touhig, Don


Rooney, Terry
Trickett, Jon


Ross, Emie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Ruddock, Joan
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)



Tynan, Bill


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Ryan, Ms Joan
Walley, Ms Joan


Salter, Martin
Watts, David


Sanders, Adrian
White, Brian


Sawford, Phil
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Shaw, Jonathan



Sheerman, Barry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Willis, Phil


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Singh, Marsha
Wise, Audrey


Skinner, Dennis
Wood, Mike


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Woodward, Shaun


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Worthington, Tony



Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Tellers for the Noes:


Snape, Peter
Mr. Mike Hall and


Soley, Clive
Mr. Graham Allen.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House commends the Government for its speedy and effective response to the humanitarian crisis in Mozambique.

Future of Rover

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I beg to move,
That this House calls upon the Government to report to the House the terms under which they brokered a rescue package for BMW/Rover in June 1999; further calls upon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to confirm that the application for Regional Selective Assistance will be sanctioned as a matter of urgency and that he will respond to the Competition Commission Report on Car Pricing as a priority; regrets that the future of Rover has been undermined by recent announcements by BMW; and urges the Government to clarify its future strategy in respect of Rover.
The Opposition decided, in light of the developments this week on the future of Rover, that it was important that the House had an opportunity to debate the issue and to seek answers from the Secretary of State. The House will know that in 1994, when BMW purchased Rover, it was a profit-making company. It was remarked at the time by BMW that the United Kingdom was a good place to manufacture and produce motor cars.
Today's announcement, and the run-up to it, has meant that there is now a significant question mark hanging over the future of Rover and particular concern about the Longbridge factory and the many tens of thousands of people who work for Rover itself, for subsidiary companies and for those that supply Rover. The whole House recognises the importance of that company and that sector to the midlands in particular and to the whole economy of this country.
Last June, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry stepped off a plane, held a photocall and press conference, and announced a new deal that he had brokered with BMW for the future of Rover at Longbridge. We were not favoured with a statement in the House on the subject. Indeed, the Government have not brought the subject of Rover to the Floor of the House since the Secretary of State held his press conference. It was left to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall in January.
To set the scene of the Secretary of State's announcement last June—to which we gave our public support—I remind the House of what he said at the time. The matter involved the first such application for state aid that he had dealt with since becoming Secretary of State—as the press reported—and he said:
I was not prepared to deal with this in the traditional way by simply making a substantial payment to BMW. Instead, I wanted the Longbridge agreement to be one which heralded a new approach to Government assistance to industry, which reflected a long-term commitment and not a quick fix. That is why I sought guarantees on productivity targets, raising skills and substantial investment from the company itself. Guarantees have been given in all these key areas.
The Secretary of State said that because new ground was being broken, the negotiations were complex and detailed, but they are now a matter of public record. The details include the £2 billion of investment put in by BMW and the £129 million of regional selective assistance and the


local grants, which amounted to some £152 million of public money and which the Secretary of State put on the table in the deal that he brokered with BMW in June.
Had we had the opportunity to question the Secretary of State at the time, we would have asked many questions. Indeed, together with colleagues in this House and in the other place—and other Members of Parliament, including Labour Members—I have tabled a series of questions in the months that have followed to seek clarification of the nature of the deal that the Secretary of State brokered.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I have been looking at the questions tabled in the past few months and I cannot find the hon. Lady's name or those of her colleagues on questions mentioning Rover or BMW. Can she give us chapter and verse, or should we conclude that hers is a very late enthusiasm?

Mrs. Browning: I am about to read those questions out, including correspondence that I have exchanged with the Secretary of State on the subject. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it was the Conservatives who initiated the only debate that has been held, in which I made a substantive contribution from the Front Bench. I have yet to see a Secretary of State from any Department contributing to any debate in Westminster Hall, but that is not the approach that we take. If a debate is important, and Rover is important, I do not delegate the matter to a junior—I put my views and those of my party on the record. The hon. Gentleman should go on a PDVN course and learn to access information a little more accurately. However, I shall not be diverted by such trivial interventions, because this is a serious issue.
Many jobs are at stake in an important sector of the economy, and we demand information and answers from the Secretary of State about his own role in the deal that he brokered, what has happened since and why—just eight months later—the deal has not lasted a year, let alone the century that the Prime Minister claimed it would.

Mr. John Redwood: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it was the Secretary of State's attempt to gerrymander the regional aid map that delayed and prevented any agreement coming from Brussels for the important aid package to help investment? Would she confirm that the Secretary of State thought he could waive the rules, only to discover that the EU had strong rules that it did not like having ignored? Is not that why, when it comes to shares in the Secretary of State, it is all sellers and no buyers?

Mrs. Browning: My right hon. Friend makes a pertinent point about where to draw the line on the map of delay. It is a matter of grave concern that the £152 million—a key component of the deal—has been delayed. Even today, there has been no assurance that the money will be on the table.
I remind the Secretary of State of the words of the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce, who answered the debate in Westminster Hall:
I am in no doubt that without the offer of support, BMW would have taken its investment elsewhere. It needed to go ahead with the investment for strategic reasons, but it did not need to come to the UK. The prime consideration for BMW was the impact of the

additional investment on the company's overall financial position.— [ Official Report, Westminster Hall, 26 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 89WH.]
When the Secretary of State announced the £152 million, there had been some brief contact between the Department and the EU's Competition Commissioner, Mr. van Miert, and his officials. However, it soon became apparent that the Secretary of State had not done his homework. He had not taken the trouble to make sure that what he was putting on the table in the negotiations would be in compliance with EU regulations. That is why, after many months of difficulty and uncertainty for Rover, that money has not been forthcoming.
Within a week of the Secretary of State's announcement, Mr. van Miert told my office that he was not inclined to think that the money would be approved automatically. He thought that it would take time and investigation before he would be convinced that the Secretary of State's bid for the money complied with EU regulations.

Mr. Richard Burden: With the group of Labour MEPs representing the west midlands, I met Commissioner Monti, who is responsible for the EU's competition policy. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has met him. We asked him whether the British Government had not answered any questions, and he said that there were no questions that had not been answered.
Articles in the Official Journal of the European Communities have made it clear that the problem with the deal was not the delays that it suffered, but the alleged haste with which it was put together. How does that fit with the right hon. Lady's argument? Does she—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a long intervention, and I know that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to catch my eye.

Mrs. Browning: It is not the pace of the deal that matters, but whether it will hold together. Surely the Secretary of State should have done his preparation and homework, given the importance of the £152 million in the negotiation that he brokered with BMW.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry(Mr. Stephen Byers): I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way on what is an important point. She seems to imply that I should have received European Commission approval before I put the deal to BMW. Will she give me just one example from the Conservative Government's period in office when a regional selective assistance deal was agreed between the European Commission and the Government before the deal was struck with the company involved?

Mrs. Browning: No, and the reason is that the Secretary of State raised expectations on what was a false prospectus. Given how he described his role in brokering the deal, he should have been much more sure of his ground in terms of compliance. The important thing was not that the deal had been made, but his ability to deliver a watertight guarantee that he would get the money, which was a contingent element in the BMW deal. If the


company has reneged on its part of the deal today, it must be because of deep disappointment that what the Secretary of State announced last June has not been delivered.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: I attended the debate in Westminster Hall at the end of January, as did my hon. Friend. Not only did the Secretary of State not check the rules before he announced his bid, but does she recall that the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce could not tell hon. Members who attended the debate when she or her officials had last spoken to the Commission about the bid's progress?

Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is right. There seems to have been general complacency with regard to the matter over the summer months. I tabled some questions to the Secretary of State, as I wanted to know the details and conditions of the package that he had negotiated. He had put £152 million of public money on the table, but we wanted to know what he had got in return. We received the answer that the conditions of the aid package were "commercially confidential". It is therefore a question of whether the Secretary of State secured a good deal, or whether BMW have reneged on that deal. The relevant information has not been made available.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Lady says that I answered her questions by saying that the details were commercially confidential. Will she give one example of details of regional selective assistance being made available to the House under the previous Government?

Mrs. Browning: The Secretary of State must be used to batches of questions from me by now, but he failed to answer one in the batch about the BMW deal. He told me on 28 June that he would write to me with the answer, but he has failed to do so. In August, I was so worried at the lack of information about the deal that I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman and reminded him that he had not written to me as he had promised a month earlier.
That is indicative of the Secretary of State's laissez-faire attitude. He had his photocall and announced the good news, and then the matter was put in the pending tray. That is where Rover sat for most of last summer. When he eventually wrote to me on 2 September, he said:
You may be assured that I and my officials will be maintaining close contact with DGD4, and we will be seeking every opportunity to press for an early and successful outcome to the case.
That was nearly six months ago, and the money is still not forthcoming.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Browning: I will give way just once more, as this is a short debate. Many hon. Members of all parties have a local constituency interest in the matter, which is why I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. I shall make some progress after his intervention.

Mr. Cunningham: The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is, like me, a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. Has the hon. Lady not

consulted him? We were in Europe three weeks ago, and were told by officials that there was no problem with the aid package.

Mrs. Browning: If there is really no problem, the Secretary of State should announce today that it has been secured. According to the announcement made today, a company called Alchemy is to take responsibility for Rover. That company must know whether the money is still on the table. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell the House.
If the money is still on the table, what will it be used for? In the past, Ministers have indicated that £150 million of public money was to help the development of the R30 car. I have studied the BMW press statement and it is not clear that the R30 will be developed by Alchemy. Indeed, there is very little reference to it at all. If that is what the money was targeted on, clearly there is a question mark over whether the Commission will release that money if, for example, the R30 will not be developed in this country after all.

Mr. Byers: If the grant to BMW is so important in terms of its decision today, can the hon. Lady confirm that BMW's announcement and the comprehensive press release that followed it do not mention the grant as one of the reasons for this decision?

Mrs. Browning: I can only quote the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce, who said at the end of January how important that grant was. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I think that the House will gain more respect outside if this debate is conducted without sedentary barracking.

Mrs. Browning: The Secretary of State and the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce have assured not only the House but the country that the deal they brokered and the £152 million on the table were going to secure the future of Rover. That was endorsed by the Prime Minister. Before the Secretary of State intervenes on me again and asks me questions, let me say that we are looking not for questions from the right hon. Gentleman, but for answers that we could rightfully have expected eight months ago when he made his first announcement.
The Government have carried out a go-slow policy with regard to the expedition of the grant. Furthermore, in the ensuing months, Government intervention has had an impact on all manufacturers, including car manufacturers and Rover in particular. Since 1994, when BMW stated that this was a good country in which to build motor cars, taxation on business has increased and it faces an additional £10 billion of regulatory costs. [Interruption.] We have seen the Secretary of State heading the "Rip Off Britain" campaign, which has stifled the retail sales of cars for more months than the car industry deserves.
The Secretary of State will recall that several months ago, during Trade and Industry questions, I urged him to make his views known on the Competition Commission report on car sales before the W registration mark came in, because retail sales are down by 12 per cent. this March compared with last year.

Mr. Sheerman: As they are in France and Germany.

Mrs. Browning: The market has been affected by a Government soundbite in which the Secretary of State and


his friends in the Cabinet thought that they could be the consumer's friend by persuading everybody that they were being ripped off. There may be a case for examining car pricing and the way in which cars are retailed in this country. I have no quarrel with that, as I have said before. However, it is totally indefensible for the Secretary of State, or any Minister, to set up an inquiry, pre-empt the outcome before the analysis has been made and then, as they have done with the retail and supermarket sectors, damage, for the sake of a quick-fix soundbite, an industry that is already under pressure because of the Government's running of the economy. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) is a senior and respected Member of this House. He should conduct himself accordingly.

Mrs. Browning: In December, Rover announced that 2,500 jobs were to go. I believe that it was as a result of that that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove initiated her debate.
The Government deny the House the opportunity to ask pertinent questions on matters of great importance to an industry such as this and to the overall good of the United Kingdom economy. I believe that this Secretary of State, in particular, would do well to recognise that it is his duty to share information with the House. It is no good coming eight months later and saying, "Nothing to do with me, guv" when, in front of the television cameras, he took credit for what he thought at the time was a bit of good news, only to sidle off into the shadows when the news is not so good. Were it not for the fact that the Conservative party changed the subject of the Opposition day debate this afternoon, I suspect that he would be giving out yet another press release to deal with this, rather than standing at the Dispatch Box, telling the House what he believes the future of Rover will be and answering many of our questions.
BMW has said this afternoon that it will retain Land Rover, but has the right hon. Gentleman any concerns that it might be doing so simply to sell it on to another third-party purchaser? Is it his understanding that Alchemy intends to develop any further models under the Rover brand, or does he believe that when the existing models have been exhausted, it will revert to the MG brand, and the name Rover will disappear from British cars altogether? Will BMW retain the development of the R30 and, if so, where will it be developed? Will it be in this country or in Germany?
The Secretary of State presides over a Department that is in an absolute shambles. What we see today adds to the belief that nobody on the Treasury Bench understands business, let alone is capable of brokering a deal on behalf of business. The Secretary of State must make up his mind. Will he be a Secretary of State who, as he claimed on television only a couple of weeks ago, does not believe that the Government should pick winners or losers? With regard to his competition policy, will he intervene or not?
The Secretary of State seems all over the place, as is his Department. He is all over the place when it comes to competition policy and when it comes to saving British industry, in which he believes he can intervene successfully. He is all over the place in bringing legislation before the House. The Utilities Bill is a

shambles and the Committee considering the Postal Services Bill has been suspended because the Government have not marshalled their amendments. This is all indicative of a Government who could not even run a whelk stall.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry(Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the actions of the Government that support the car industry, including delivering stable inflation and low interest rates, boosting support for supply chain activities and acting on the Foresight Vehicle Programme; welcomes the Government support for the Longbridge plant given through the offer of Regional Selective Assistance; understands that the major losses that BMW have suffered on Rover have put great pressure on BMW with respect to Rover; and congratulates the Government for playing its role in working closely with the company and the workforce to try to ensure there is a future for Rover.
This has been a very important day for Rover and for the Government's relationships with major multinational companies such as BMW. I want to report to the House on the decisions that the supervisory board of BMW has taken today, and I want to explain the circumstances surrounding our offer of grant aid in June of last year.
First, it is important to inform the House of the decisions that have been taken by the BMW supervisory board today. I also want to share with the House some additional information that I have received from Professor Milberg, the chairman of BMW, following the supervisory board meeting that was held earlier today.
The supervisory board has decided that production of the new Mini, which originally was to be based at the Longbridge site, will go ahead but will be developed at the Cowley plant in Oxford. The new Mini will be launched, as originally planned, in the early summer of 2001. Production of the Rover 75 will continue at the Cowley plant in Oxford, but it will be produced on behalf of Alchemy Partners, the new company to which BMW has decided to dispose the Rover and MG brands. Sales and distribution of the car will also be handled by Alchemy Partners.
The body pressing facility at Swindon will be retained as part of BMW. The Hams Hall engine facility in Birmingham, which is a very important project, will be completed and will enter operation as planned, as part of BMW.
Today's major announcement affects the future of the Longbridge plant in Birmingham. BMW's decision to dispose of the Rover and MG brands to Alchemy Partners will have clear implications for Longbridge. I have spoken today with Jon Moulton, one of the new owner's principal directors. I pointed out the importance of Longbridge and the belief of many people that it has a viable long-term future as a car production facility. I stressed the importance of Longbridge and the way in which the work force have responded over some months to changed circumstances by improving productivity and raising skills. I stressed the plant's strategic importance for Birmingham and the west midlands as a whole.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I thank the Secretary of State for recognising the great importance of Longbridge, but he has not yet mentioned the destiny of


Land Rover, which is in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State comment on rumours currently circulating that it will be sold to Ford Motor Company?

Mr. Byers: I shall when I come to the discussions that I had with Professor Milberg after the supervisory board meeting. He specifically addressed Land Rover's position, and I hope to answer the hon. Gentleman's point a little later.
On Longbridge, Mr. Moulton said that he wanted to retain car production, and that Alchemy Partners was not in the business of asset stripping. He said that the company intended to develop the MG brand at Longbridge. Clearly, however, many questions remain to be answered for the people who work at Longbridge and for the whole west midlands. I shall meet Mr. Moulton later today to discuss further Alchemy's detailed intentions. I shall stress both the important part that Longbridge can play and that car production should be retained. I hope that Alchemy Partners will recognise its responsibility as the new owners of Longbridge to a work force who have been flexible, who have improved productivity and who believe, as the Government and I do, that Longbridge has a viable long-term future.

Mr. Redwood: Does the Secretary of State agree that his mishandling of the whole regional aid map discussions with Brussels has left him powerless to intervene and caused endless delay? Does that not show that the warranty he offered to Rover workers was time-expired on the day that he gave it? He must have known that he had filed an illegal map and that there would be endless delay. When will he sit down with the Commission to reach agreement?

Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman tries to divert us to an issue not related to BMW's announcement today. I spoke to Professor Milberg yesterday, asking whether, given the difficulties faced by BMW—a loss of £740 million this year on top of the loss in 1998 of £550 million—our grant of £152 million over five years would make a great difference. He said that in the context of the difficult decisions that BMW had to take today, the grant was not an issue. Opposition Members may want to make an issue of that, but it is a red herring. [Interruption.] I shall come on to grant aid shortly.
The right hon. Gentleman likes to say that he understands business. He should realise that losses of £1.3 billion over two years are far more significant than a grant of £152 million over five years.

Mr. Redwood: At the time the Secretary of State tried to negotiate grant aid, he and his colleagues thought that it was important; so did BMW, and so did the people of the west midlands. We knew that we could lose the whole transaction because of the delays created by the Secretary of State. Is he saying that he will not bother to sort out his row with Brussels, and that if a future owner of any part of our motor industry wants aid he will not care less and none will be available?

Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman cannot resist talking about rows with Brussels. They are the entire raison d'etre of his political life. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer seriously."] It was not a serious question.
The issues surrounding the grant did not affect the decision taken today by the BMW supervisory board. The House is concerned with the consequences of that decision. We have had discussions today with Alchemy, and during my discussion with the new owner this evening I will ask whether the grant is significant as far as it is concerned. The situation is clear. The grant related to a deal struck with BMW for investment at Longbridge. If that investment does not go ahead, the grant will go by default.

Mr. John Butterfill: When the Secretary of State met the director from Alchemy earlier, did he ask how Alchemy imagines it may be able to cope with losses of the scale that have been sustained by Rover? If he did not, will he discuss that point with the director later?

Mr. Byers: I spoke to Jon Moulton earlier, and will meet him later. I shall wish to raise that point with Mr. Moulton. We do not want the new owner to give false hopes to those who work at Longbridge if it will be unable to develop a viable car production facility there.
The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) made an important point about the direct effects on his constituents. Land Rover has been a highly successful car production facility in Solihull, and BMW is seeking an alternative owner. Land Rover will be a desirable car production facility, and other car manufacturers will be interested in acquiring it. Professor Milberg did not mention any particular company when I spoke with him about an hour and a half ago, and there is some speculation about who the new owner might be. We shall discuss this whole matter with a number of manufacturers over the coming hours and days. That will clearly include any particular interest in Land Rover.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, but he has given me a certain sense of deja vu. When I first came to the House, I was involved in stopping the sale of Land Rover to General Motors. I shall have to look out my papers, as we seem to be in the same position all over again.

Mr. Byers: I hope that, whatever happens, people will realise that Land Rover is an excellent facility, manufacturing a product that is profitable and desirable. As Secretary of State, I intend to make that case.
The events that occurred at the supervisory board today are a great disappointment to the Government. We had an understanding—an agreement—with BMW, to which the work force had signed up. It was that there would be changes in working practices, that productivity would be improved, and that investment would be made—especially in the Longbridge facility. BMW accepted that, until 2002, a loss would be incurred by the Rover group in the UK, but that it could live with that. The company intended to break even by 2002.
Today's decision by BMW goes against the understanding that was reached last year.

Mr. Michael Jack: Towards the end of last year, in some of the more authoritative parts of the British automotive press, stories were circulating that BMW had lost interest in Rover and had been in discussions with


Volkswagen about carving up the various plants. Was the Secretary of State aware of those reports? If he was advised of them by his officials, what action did he take to check them out with BMW to find out whether the company was already preparing an exit strategy?

Mr. Byers: My Department and I have close links with BMW and have been in dialogue with the company about many issues. Over the past few days, it has become clear that a small number of BMW's directors have adopted a new business strategy—that was revealed today.
The business strategy towards which BMW was working was the one that was agreed during last year: to retain Rover—in its totality—in the UK, and to invest in areas such as Longbridge in the future. As a result of the escalating losses incurred by BMW, which today declared losses of about £140 million last year, the company felt that in order to protect its total viability, radical decisions had to be taken. We are seeing the effect of those today.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Byers: I cannot give way because I need to make some progress. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) raised some important issues about grant aid that I want to address. It will take me a little time to do so and I want to enable many hon. Members to take part in the debate.
Since 1994, BMW has made a significant investment in Rover. At Solihull, new lines have been developed for Land Rover's Freelander and Discovery models. BMW has put £400 million into a new line at Cowley, incorporating state-of-the-art technology and new working practices. That has enabled the introduction of the Rover 75. The new engine facility at Hams Hall has received an investment of £400 million to produce engines for Rover and BMW.
Changes have been introduced, and a large investment has been made by BMW. However, even with that investment, the losses incurred by BMW have escalated year after year. Over the past two years, they amounted to £1.3 billion. BMW informed me that it was the scale of those losses that led to today's decision.

Mr. Tony Baldry: rose—

Dr. Vincent Cable: rose—

Mr. Byers: I want to make some more points.
The Government are disappointed that BMW has decided to adopt a different business strategy to the one that was agreed with us last year. We regret that.
Specific points were made about grant aid applications.

Mr. Tom King: The Secretary of State pointed out that BMW found it necessary to change its strategy. Given the scale of the losses, any board would consider doing that. On what assumptions about exchange rates was the original strategy based? Does the Secretary of State know about that?

Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman will have to raise that issue with BMW. The company makes decisions based on its own estimates.

Dr. Cable: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the exchange rate assumption used by BMW—not only for

its private affairs, but as the basis for the Government grant application—was DM2.40? Was the DTI aware of that detail when the application was approved?

Mr. Byers: It would be better for BMW to confirm figures that may be regarded as commercially confidential. [Interruption.] It is an important point. Opposition Members will be aware that when regional selective assistance applications are made, and the Government and companies enter into deals, that is confidential. I should be happy to reveal the information if BMW gave me approval. However, I shall not put at risk the relationship between the Government and those companies which approach us, in confidence, for RSA by disclosing that information to the House. That would be wrong; I do not intend to do it.
I want to move on to the important points on grant aid—the subject of most of the comments made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton. She raised a number of important issues about the way in which we have dealt with grant aid to BMW. I want to address them each specifically, and I shall compare how a grant application from Rover-BMW was dealt with under her Government, when she was a Minister, with how we have dealt with this particular application about which she has been so critical.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do?

Mr. Byers: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like to face the facts, but, on this occasion, he will have to, because I am going to go through them.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton would not answer my intervention about the number of occasions on which the Conservative Government had disclosed commercially confidential information. On no occasion was commercially confidential information revealed—not once. On how many occasions were discussions held with the European Commission before an offer was made to a company, and on how many occasions were the principles agreed in advance with the European Commission? Not on one occasion—that is the reality of the situation.
Today's serious announcement from BMW about the future made no reference to the grant aid being made available. No reference was made because for BMW it is not the big issue.
Let us consider two grant applications: the £152 million on which the hon. Lady has concentrated and the regional selective application for £22.5 million for the Hams Hall engine facility, which was also for Rover-BMW and was dealt with under the previous Conservative Government. On the £152 million grant that we intended to make available to Longbridge, the deal was struck with BMW on 23 June last year. We notified the European Commission on 20 August, which was just under two months later.
The application for Hams Hall was far smaller.

Mr. Nick Gibb: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Byers: I will give way in a second, but I want to go through the facts.
The application for Hams Hall was a lot smaller—£22.5 million. The deal was struck by the Conservative Government on 15 November 1996, but it was notified by this Labour Government because the Conservatives did nothing about it while they were in office. It was not until 7 May 1997 that notification was given to the European Commission, and it was not until 22 January 1998 that approval was finally given. There were 14 months between the deal being struck and the grant being approved.
On Longbridge, the deal was made on 23 June 1998; on 20 August, notification was given to Europe; and Commissioner Monti agreed on 20 December that a decision would be taken within six months. Within a year, we would have learned the outcome—a year compared to the 14 months for the application for Hams Hall. We were moving far more quickly on the grant aid for Longbridge than had ever happened before.

Mr. John Bercow: The Secretary of State is certainly putting a brave face on his own crass ineptitude in this matter. Is he seeking to play down the significance of the grant aid package because he recognises what was stated in The Economist this week by an unnamed official? It reports that, when the Secretary of State spoke in Brussels on 7 March this year, the response from Mr. Monti was, as the unnamed official said, a polite two fingers.

Mr. Byers: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a remarkable memory, but I think that he will find that the 7 March reference was to a conversation that the Prime Minister was supposed to have had with the Commission. He did not speak to Commissioner Monti about this particular issue. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that that is the case.
Commissioner Monti has agreed to put this application on a fast track, and that is exactly what he is doing. We have maintained a close relationship with BMW over this period and we have put suitable pressure on the European Commission. As a result, it is dealing with this application far more quickly than it has dealt with similar applications. That is the position.

Mr. Gibb: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm again that the formal notification to the Commission took place in August, and not in December, because the Commission and all the press coverage indicate that the Commission received formal notification of the state aid in December?

Mr. Byers: That is wrong. The Commission was formally notified in August. On 22 December, the Commission decided to launch an investigation into whether the grant should be made available. Between August and December, we were providing the Commission with information, and in the light of that it decided that an investigation was needed. That is the policy that Commissioner Monti has adopted with every grant aid application for cars that has landed on his desk.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I support my right hon. Friend in rebutting the Opposition's attempts to turn the matter into a party political issue. There is no question—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He has been given the opportunity to intervene, and he should be heard.

Mr. Robinson: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is no question but that the Government, and my right hon. Friend himself, have given the maximum support to a normal application for aid under the EU treaty. That is not an issue. The issue today for a major part of British industry and for those who can put this matter ahead of party political matters is surely that BMW has reneged on its undertaking to the Government and the British motor manufacturing industry and all its workers. It may be beyond the point of recall, but it still has to be stated that BMW came in, cherry picked what it wanted and walked out when things got too expensive. Although my right hon. Friend tried very hard, does not this hold the lesson for all of us that, even in a global economy, ownership is terribly important?

Mr. Byers: I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct. There is a real sense of disappointment at BMW's decision.
Serious issues have been raised about grant aid being dealt with slowly. A comparable case concerned Volkswagen's application for aid. It notified the Commission last July, a month before we notified the Commission about Longbridge. The Commission opened proceedings last November, as opposed to December for Longbridge. We have already had notification in the Official Journal of the EC of the Longbridge proceedings being started, whereas the Commission has not, as yet, even notified the Official Journal about the Volkswagen case. That clearly demonstrates that the Commission is dealing quickly with the Longbridge application.
On grant aid, the position is that commercial confidentiality has applied to every application for regional selective assistance under this Government and the previous Government. In no case has approval been given by the European Commission before a deal was struck with the company concerned. Longbridge is being dealt with under a fast-track procedure because of the pressure that the Government have put on the European Commission. That is the reality.
It is worth comparing that with the record of the Conservatives when Rover was privatised. Under the previous Administration, illegal aid was paid to Rover on privatisation, and it had to be repaid with interest. The Conservative Government had to repay a total of £84 million because they had got their aid procedures wrong. It was as simple as that. That is the Conservatives' record on securing European approval for aid.

Mr. John Butterfill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Byers: No, I will not. I have given way plenty of times. Members with a constituency interest want to take part in the debate—

Mr. Butterfill: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. Byers: I have given way on many issues to Conservative Members.

Mr. Butterfill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had to run out of the Chamber to get some important information about Alchemy—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House. He knows, even from those few words, that that is not a point of order for the Chair; it is a point of debate.

Mr. Byers: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
BMW has been content with the way in which we dealt with the state aid application. That was not mentioned once in the statement with regard to the reasons behind the decision that has been taken today. The matter is a red herring, which has been introduced by the Conservative party.

Mr. Butterfill: rose—

Mr. Byers: I am not giving way. I want to make progress. There are important issues still to be addressed.
It would be wrong for people to think that because of the difficulties being experienced by BMW, the car industry in the United Kingdom is facing similar problems. Since the Government took office, more than £2.4 billion of new investment has been made in the UK car industry, creating 8,750 new jobs.
Earlier this month, Audi announced a £45 million investment in its engineering subsidiary, Cosworth Technology, to expand its sites at Northampton, Wellingborough and Worcester, doubling its work force as a result.
Increasing capital expenditure is going into the industry—£128 million since April last year. That capital expenditure has brought 1,700 new jobs and safeguarded 4,700 jobs, many of them in the west midlands.
Today's announcement by BMW is regrettable. It is a great disappointment. It creates uncertainty for workers at Rover, their suppliers and their families. We must ensure that those people have opportunities and are given some hope for the future.

Miss Kirkbride: rose—

Mr. Byers: That is why, later tonight, I am meeting Alchemy Partners, the new owners of the Longbridge site. We need to find out from Alchemy what its proposals are with respect to Longbridge. We will be asking difficult questions, to which Alchemy will need to give answers.

Miss Kirkbride: rose—

Mr. Byers: Today, our thoughts must be with the workers at Longbridge, their families and their community. In Government, we face many difficult

questions, but we must never lose sight of the fact that those are human questions, the answers to which will affect individuals, their families and their communities.

Miss Kirkbride: rose—

Mr. Byers: The Government will discharge their responsibilities to the people of Longbridge and the west midlands. We will do so, even though the Conservative party will criticise us and introduce diversions.

Miss Kirkbride: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Byers: We recognise that the interests of the workers of Longbridge and the west midlands will be served by the Government. We will not return to the days when tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs in the west midlands were lost because of the Conservative Government's policy. We will continue to campaign for Longbridge. We believe that it has a viable long-term future. We will not be diverted by the Opposition, and we will discharge our responsibilities.

Dr. Vincent Cable: I start by echoing the Secretary of State's closing words. All our hearts should go out to the thousands of men and women, many of whom have highly specialised skills, who must be in a state of high anxiety. That is probably common ground among all of us.
I sincerely hope that those workers will be well looked after by their new employer, Alchemy. I hope that they fare a little better than the outstandingly able secretary who works in my constituency office. Until a year ago, she worked in an operation that was subject to an Alchemy buy-out. She was made redundant and now works for me. That may be an unfortunate personal example.

Mr. Butterfill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Is he aware—and is the Secretary of State aware, before he meets Alchemy tonight—that Alchemy's investment preferences, as stated in its entry in the "British Venture Capital Association Handbook", is a maximum investment of £50 million? Its average current investment size is £15 million. Its total funds invested to date at cost are £304 million, and the total funds that it manages or advises are £255 million. In the light of that, one must ask how Alchemy will manage an operation of the size of Longbridge.

Dr. Cable: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is asking the right question. It is clear that there is no experience of volume car making. The enterprise for which my secretary worked was a German brewery. The synergy between that and the car industry is not immediately obvious.
The motion is rather innocuous. I doubt whether any of us is opposed to clarifying the future. The Opposition are probably attacking the wrong Minister for the wrong reasons. I read the comments of the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), in the press this morning. She said that


today there would be cross-party demand to guarantee the future of Longbridge. I think that the hon. Lady knows—[Interruption.] She wants to clarify the matter.

Mrs. Browning: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman read that, but they are certainly not words that I said yesterday.

Dr. Cable: I am delighted to hear that. Perhaps the Financial Times should take down the hon. Lady's comments rather more carefully in future.
I shall move on. There is a crucial area of policy and it is not that the Government are responsible for guaranteeing the future of Longbridge. No Minister can do that. We are discussing a competitive industry and a company that is in a difficult set of circumstances. However, the Government can guarantee macro-economic stability, and that is what they should be doing. The Labour amendment accepts that implicitly. It begins by saying that the Government have created low inflation and low interest rates. The first point is certainly true. The second is true only if we disregard what is happening in the euro zone, where interest rates are 2 per cent. lower than in the UK. That is rather important in this context because Rover is competing with European car manufacturers, which have the benefit of these conditions.
The real problem is the exchange rate, which neither the Conservative spokesman nor the Secretary of State mentioned. It is a serious issue that cuts across party boundaries. The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) is not in his place, but only yesterday the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which he chairs, produced a devastating report about the impact that an appreciating exchange rate is having on manufacturing industry. That includes not only the car industry, but Harland and Wolf, which was in trouble earlier this week, the coal industry, the steel industry and agriculture. All those sectors have been affected in precisely the same way.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the problem is not an appreciating pound but a depreciating euro. It is clearly the job of the European central bank and our partners to do something about that.

Dr. Cable: That is entirely incorrect. I received a fax today from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which has calculated what it calls, in economic jargon, the real effective exchange rate. That is, Britain's exchange rate against the exchange rates of the rest of the world, and not only the euro, allowing for changes in inflation. Since the low point in 1996, the pound has appreciated against allcomers. It has not done so against the dollar, but it has risen against currencies in general by more than 30 per cent. Since the Government came into office, it has appreciated by 15 per cent. That matters enormously in the context of the debate. BMW has argued that, for every pfennig by which the pound appreciates against the German currency and against the euro zone, it has been losing £8 million.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Why is it that BMW, through the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s, lived with an

appreciating deutschmark? The answer is that it increased productivity and quality. Why could it not have done that in the UK? It is a simple question.

Dr. Cable: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, which is a perfectly fair one, is that BMW has inherited a plant that, because of its low productivity and history, is exceptionally dependent on price competitiveness. Commodity production depends on price competitiveness. BMW says openly that one of the major sources of its losses is the exchange rate.

Mr. Robinson: BMW lived with that for three decades, from the 1960s to the 1980s. Indeed, it built up a company that was a glittering success, with productivity and quality to match it. All we asked is that it did that at Rover. It failed to do so because it did not put in the necessary effort.

Dr. Cable: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is failing entirely to grasp that the conditions in the car industry now are wholly different from those that applied in the 1960s, when there was rapid growth and a need for new investment in the industry. The crucial feature of the European car industry in which BMW and, on this side of the channel, Rover are having to compete is excess capacity. Price competitiveness is severe and losses are sustained because of the exchange rate. BMW has said that it is losing £200 million or £300 million because of the exchange rate. It is passing some of that back to its suppliers, many of whom have been forced to move on to euro contracts so that small manufacturers around the west midlands have absorbed the losses. That has been a key factor in BMW's decisions.
As I said in an earlier intervention, much of the optimism about proposed investments at Longbridge and in the Rover group was based on a wholly unreal assumption about the exchange rate. At some point, BMW would have to decide that conditions had changed and that it would have to respond to that.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Is not the hon. Gentleman concerned by the Government's complete inability to realise that the exchange rate and the strength of the pound constitute a problem? Not only the car industry, but all United Kingdom manufacturing industry and farming are haemorrhaging. If the Government talked to dairy farmers as often as they talked to the automotive industry, they would receive the same message.

Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman is right, but the problem also applies to the Conservative party. The Leader of the Opposition is travelling around the marketplaces of England and talking about poor, unfortunate Europeans who are suffering from a weak currency, apparently unaware that most of their manufacturers are laughing their way to the bank. That is a problem for both sides of the House. However, it is important to tackle that complex difficulty.
Macro-economic management, trying to achieve stable inflation and a lower exchange rate, is not easy. It is linked to our entry strategy for the euro. Until we get the policy right, not only the car industry, but many other traded-goods industries in agriculture and manufacturing will suffer the same torment. That is the main point, and why I say that the wrong Minister has been targeted.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Some Labour Members accept that the strength of sterling is a


problem. However, it is mainly a problem in relation to the weakness of the euro. Will the hon. Gentleman explain his perception of the cause of the strength of sterling and how he would reduce it?

Dr. Cable: Statistics suggest that the difficulty is not only caused by the euro, although it constitutes a large part of the problem. We are considering a European market, and the euro-sterling exchange rate matters in that context. The hon. Lady asked what we could do about that. I had already begun to develop the argument—[Interruption.] The Liberal Democrats, perhaps uniquely, because we have a commitment to entering the euro zone, believe—

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: rose—

Dr. Cable: Let me finish the answer to the previous question. We have a commitment to the euro zone and we believe that it is the Government's responsibility to define a competitive exchange rate for the British economy at an early stage. They should do that by building on evidence from the International Monetary Fund and other organisations in recent months, and beginning to work towards their objective as quickly as possible through the Bank of England.

Mr. Robinson: If we accepted the hon. Gentleman's prescription for our problem—it is unique for a Labour Government to have an exchange rate that is too high—and we entered the euro and reduced our interest rates and our pound accordingly, the consequences for inflation would be catastrophic. Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates that.

Dr. Cable: The Government missed the boat two years ago and our discussion is slightly academic. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the consequences for inflation of a realistic exchange rate will have to be paced through monetary policy. The Government could and should do many other things to tackle inflation, for example, acting through the property market—stamp duty and property taxation—to deal with the inflated asset market. That supplementary policy should be adopted.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) seems to be totally blind to the fact that there is a real problem. I am not pretending for a minute that there is a simple solution, but there is a solution—or a complex of solutions—that would put the economy on a more stable basis in relation to its external exchange rate. However, simply pretending that the problem does not exist is myopic in the extreme and very damaging. He may think that that is a joke, but a large number of his constituents and many British manufacturers think that the Government have severely neglected their undertakings.
The Chancellor has told the House on many occasions that having a stable and competitive exchange rate is a Government commitment. It is not remotely competitive. If it is not competitive, why have they committed themselves to that policy objective? If they have no idea of how to realise it, why promulgate it as an aim?

Mr. Robinson: What would the hon. Gentleman do?

Dr. Cable: I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman what I would do about that.

Mr. Michael Howard: The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely interesting point,

but does he recognise that the inescapable inference is that early entry to the euro, which is the policy advocated by his party and which would inevitably build in permanently the disadvantage that we are suffering from the present exchange rate, would be a disaster for this country?

Dr. Cable: The early exchange rate with the euro would have been based on the average of the two years previous to 1997, which would have been relatively competitive. We now have a problem. We have to navigate our way back to that point, but it will be some years before the British exchange rate reaches a level at which we can once again contemplate entry. That is the challenge that we have to face. Labour Members who pretend that that is not an issue and Conservatives who believe that we can have a floating exchange rate against the euro zone indefinitely are dodging a fundamental issue of national importance.

Dr. Evan Harris: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Cable: I am happy to debate this matter indefinitely and my hon. Friend wants to do so as well.

Dr. Harris: Will my hon. Friend accept from me that my constituents who work at the Oxford Cowley plant feel tremendous solidarity with, and concern for, the people who work at Longbridge? They will be anxious that the Conservative party wants to play politics with the exchange rate and that Ministers have refused to answer the point about the effect of the high exchange rate consequent on their policy of appeasing the tabloid press over the euro, rather than putting the interests of British manufacturing first.

Dr. Cable: That is an effective coda to this part of the debate and I shall leave it at that. May I move on to two areas that are specific responsibilities of the Department of Trade and Industry?

Mr. Peter Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman give way before he moves on?

Dr. Cable: Happily.

Mr. Snape: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, for 30 years until the mid-1990s, Britain's exchange rate—compared with those of virtually the rest of the world—continued to decline, yet this country's manufacturing industry also sadly continued to decline? He is long on problems, like most of his party. Has he any solutions?

Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman has totally missed the point about history. Of course the exchange rate declined, but British inflation was relatively high. The real exchange rate, which is what matters for competitiveness, was uncompetitive for much of that time, as he knows perfectly well.
Let me move on to the two issues that concern the DTI. One is the European Commission. The Government have argued that the apparent or prospective failure of the bid was not central to BMW's decision, but there are important issues here. This country has been remarkably conceited about European policy on state aids. There is a


widespread belief, which has been echoed in interventions from around the Chamber, that our manufacturers observe the rules and the rest of the European Union does not. Over the years, Governments of both parties have clamoured for a state aids regime that is honest and tough, and a Commissioner who reflects those values. In this context, it is abundantly clear that Mr. Monti is both and he is exercising his toughness by casting a beady eye over the application.
I draw that point out again because in an Adjournment debate two months ago I was censured by a Minister for questioning the validity of the argument about the Hungarian migration. I was told that that was scaremongering and a dangerous line of argument that would imperil this crucial state aid application. We need to register clearly that whatever comes out of this, the European Commission has handled the episode entirely correctly and in the way that any British Government would expect of a commission concerned with stamping out damaging state aids.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton raised, in a partially correct way, the issue of DTI responsibility and the relationship with the Competition Commission inquiry into car prices. She was correct that there is a problem of joined-up government. The Government, for good reasons, embarked on an exercise to protect consumers. It is becoming clearer, as time passes and prices are more transparent, that car prices in Britain are significantly higher than in Europe, which is wrong, and that monopoly profit has been earned somewhere along the chain.
It may or may not be true that that depressed car sales last year. It is true that, when a competitive market for cars is introduced, a substantial profit margin will be taken from somewhere else. Some of that profit margin will be taken from many British companies that purchase company vehicles on the cheap, but a large part will be taken from the profit margins of the car industry, which has benefited from that regime.
I do not criticise the Government for embarking on that exercise. They were absolutely right to place emphasis on consumer protection. However, they should have been aware that the inquiry would significantly undermine the profit forecasts of many British manufacturers, including Rover.
Our primary concern should be for people in the west midlands, whose future is placed in peril by imminent decisions. I hope that we will quickly move on from the debate about who lost Longbridge to a more forward-looking debate about how we provide structural help to a region that has become overdependent—as Clydeside and the coal-mining areas did before—on an industry whose prospects in the current European economic environment are not good.

Mr. Richard Burden: Yesterday in Prime Minister's questions, I said that the entire midlands area was holding its breath, waiting on the BMW board meeting that was to take place today. We now know the result. The responsibility for what looks like befalling Longbridge and other large parts of the Rover group is that of BMW. The day after the announcement in 1994 about BMW taking over Rover,

I met its then chairman, Bernd Pischetsrieder. He assured me that BMW was in for the long haul, knew the investment requirements of Rover and would make the company a success. I believe that Bernd Pischetsrieder was being straight with me but I know also that, from that day on, every time there was speculation about the future of Rover and BMW not being in it for the long haul, BMW assured me personally, the Government and—most important of all—the people who worked for Rover and its suppliers that BMW was in for the long haul and had a long-term commitment to Rover and to Longbridge in particular.
We know that BMW faced difficulties, but in negotiations over two years, it struck me that there were three essential elements in Rover having a bright future—and BMW did not disagree. First, workers at Longbridge and the other Rover plants needed to change their working practices and adopt greater flexibility. The workers delivered ground-breaking agreements on working practices. They have done everything that BMW asked of them and more.
Secondly, the whole process had to receive the backing of government at all levels in the UK. That has been delivered as well. Local partners—from Birmingham city council to the chamber of commerce and the training and enterprise council—got behind Longbridge and put together a package negotiated with BMW to deliver their side of the bargain. Despite what has been said by Opposition Members, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has behaved impeccably and has shown commitment on behalf of the Government by delivering the f152 million package and showing faith in the Rover group and BMW.
The third element was BMW itself. It is true that, in the first years of its involvement, it made a major investment in the Rover Group: about £500 million a year. It is also true that BMW committed itself to a further £1.5 billion of investment at the Longbridge plant. That commitment, however, has not been honoured, and the responsibility lies with BMW and with BMW alone.
I do not think that we should allow any evasion, and I was disappointed that Conservative Members tried to shift the responsibility. Let me take up some of the issues that they raised. First, let me deal with the European Commission, and the reference to the grant.
It is regrettable that the European Commission takes such time over applications—I have a less sanguine view in that regard than the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)—although it must be said that it has taken less time over this application than over others. We should remember, however, that the European Commission agreed and announced in December that it would embark on a formal inquiry. At that stage, we wanted to know what time scales were involved. There was speculation; it could take up to 18 months. The Commission said that it would take up to six months. That was clearly regrettable, but there was no suggestion then, and there is no suggestion now, that it constituted a fundamental barrier to BMW's continuing its investment and standing by Longbridge. In implying something else, Conservative Members are being disingenuous, or else they have lost the plot in regard to what is going on with BMW and Longbridge.
The strength of sterling was also raised. Anyone who represents a manufacturing area—anyone who knows companies involved in exports, particularly to Europe—


is aware of the difficulty that that is causing to our manufacturers, but it is no excuse for what BMW has done. The losses announced at the BMW board meeting were not a bolt from the blue; they had been predicted for months.
If BMW or anyone else argues that the strength of sterling was the make or break element for BMW, it should be remembered that BMW prides itself on being a pan-European company. That means that it produces in Germany as well as in the United Kingdom, and that it benefits from the weakness of the euro when importing its vehicles to the United Kingdom and when exporting them to the United States. Perhaps BMW could have been more aggressive and dynamic in exporting classic cars such as the Rover 75 to the United States: if it had done that earlier, the cars would have sold very well.
It grieves me to say this, because I have been supportive of BMW for years, but it has a responsibility for what has happened, and that needs to be recorded.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that production of cars in the United Kingdom is some 40 per cent. lower than it is in Germany? Does that not more than negate the exchange-rate argument?

Mr. Burden: My hon. Friend makes a good point.
I hoped that we would be able to secure a degree of cross-party agreement on the important issue of how we could get behind Longbridge and plan for the future, but if Conservative Members are going to criticise the way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has handled the grant application, or the way in which he has handled the matter overall, they will be sitting in some rather fragile glass houses. It was they who sold off the Rover Group to British Aerospace for a song. It was they who, when the company had an asset base worth in excess of £250 million, wrote off debts totalling £800 million. The company was declaring a pre-tax profit of £65 million, and how much did they sell it for? They sold it for £150 million. That was crass incompetence and against European rules; the previous Government were found out about that.

Mr. Butterfill: Were the previous Government trodden down in a rush by alternative buyers prepared to pay more?

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman would perhaps do well to read—I hope that it is still in print because it is a classic document—the National Audit Office report entitled "Department of Trade and Industry sale of Rover Group plc to British Aerospace plc". One of the issues mentioned in the report is that the previous Government went straight to British Aerospace and did not look around for other potential partners.
The impact of today's decisions is real enough. As the Secretary of State said, the impact is not on a theoretical plant, or theoretical people, but on real people and real livelihoods in the west midlands and elsewhere. It has been estimated that, just in the midlands, about 50,000 jobs depend on the Longbridge plant. Birmingham city council estimates that, if Longbridge were to close, the total cost to the public purse would be about £317 million. If there were a major slimming down of Longbridge, the cost would be £178 million. Total jobs lost from a

complete closure in the Birmingham area would be 19,370 and from a slimming down 10,850, so we are dealing with a very serious issue for the west midlands and for motor manufacturing in this country as a whole.
Today, we have heard the news that Alchemy Partners is in negotiations with BMW and that BMW has said that it wishes to dispose of the majority of Rover Cars to Alchemy. We do not know much about Alchemy at this stage, but we must say clearly that, if it ended up as an exercise in asset-stripping, that would not be acceptable to my constituents or to the west midlands as a whole.
Statements have been coming out of Alchemy today about its launch of the MG car company. It says that it wants to retain motor manufacturing at Longbridge and that it is committed to motor manufacturing in the west midlands. I am pleased that it is saying that, but, as the Secretary of State said, we must ask it some serious questions.
We have to examine exactly what model range Alchemy anticipates producing and how all that will be financed. We need to examine whether other partners are involved. Production and design of new models involve considerable financial firepower. If Alchemy is to take over Rover Cars, we have to be assured about what it will do with it and of its commitment.
I hope that my fears about Alchemy are unfounded. If it is committed to the west midlands and can bring the firepower to bear not just to save Longbridge, but to ensure that the commitment of the work force to the plant continues and that the potential of the plant is realised, no one will be happier than me. For that to happen, it will need a critical mass behind it. It has to explain how it will put that critical mass together.
There is a longer-term issue that goes well beyond Longbridge and the Rover Group. Throughout Europe and, indeed, elsewhere, there is over-capacity in the motor industry. We have known about that for some time. The consequences are beginning to be felt. We need a long-term strategy for the motor industry. We know of the devastation that was inflicted on coalfield communities as a result of the acts of industrial vandalism by the previous Government. There have been integrated strategies to regenerate those areas. We need similar—in fact, greater—creativity in our industrial areas.
We need to look 10 and 20 years hence, think about where the motor industry and manufacturing will be, and get ahead of the game in working with components' suppliers and manufacturers, so that we can decide the strategies necessary to make the best use of our great powers of innovation and great industrial base and to meet the challenges of the future.
Some examples are available, such as the British motor sport industry. Although that is a hobby-horse of mine, it is a relevant example. Everyone knows about motor sport, but not many people know about the multi-million pound motor sport industry. The industry is essentially composed of quite small firms, but they are clustered, bringing together communities of knowledge that, although highly competitive, are highly co-operative. The arrangement has been a success story not only for the industry, but for Britain.
I do not claim that the lessons of the motor sport industry can simply be picked up and dropped into mainstream motor manufacturing—they cannot—but some lessons can be learned from it. I hope—I am sure


that it will happen—that my right hon. Friends and other Ministers will get together with partners in the regions, such as the regional development agencies and local authorities, to implement a strategy to ensure not only that Longbridge survives next year and the year after, but that British motor manufacturing lasts well into this century and beyond. It has the potential to do so.
Although it is no excuse for BMW to blame the exchange rate for its decision today—the responsibility for the decision is with BMW, and BMW alone—the exchange rate is an issue for manufacturing industry. I do not dispute the Bank of England's right to set interest rates. As far as I know, under their current policy, even Conservative Members do not dispute the Bank of England's right to set interest rates—[Interruption.]s They have done another U-turn. I cannot keep up with their policy shifts.
The Bank has a responsibility to consider the long-term health and stability of the British economy, but a healthy manufacturing base is both a short-term issue and a long-term issue. Although the Bank has the right to set interest rates, it perhaps needs to examine more closely its responsibility for ensuring the long-term health of manufacturing industry.
The lessons of the past 24 hours will be remembered in the west midlands for a long time to come. Now, however, is the time for us not only to lay the responsibility at BMW's door, but to move on—to work with Alchemy to ensure that it can deliver what it says it can deliver, and to ensure that we develop and implement the strategies that can revive our industrial areas and allow British motor manufacturing to achieve its potential.

Sir Norman Fowler: I should like to speak briefly, like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), and I shall come back to one or two of the points that he made.
The first thing to be said is that this is potentially a vast tragedy. The decisions now being taken are vastly important to the west midlands and to constituencies such as mine. Literally thousands of jobs are at stake, and I approach the debate in that spirit.
Although many newspapers lovingly remember "Red Robbo" and the days of industrial anarchy at Longbridge, those days are long over. They were 30 years ago. It is as absurd to judge Rover in that light as it would be to judge national newspapers on the basis of the old Spanish practices that used to go on there. In Rover, there has been a transformation of industrial relations. The vast majority of the work force are dedicated men and women. As someone who will not be standing at the next general election, I say that there are few better people in this country than those living and working in the midlands.
Over the years, one of the things that we have suffered from is the way in which some London-based commentators and, sometimes, politicians have written off Rover and the midlands. There has been all too little recognition of the recovery efforts that have been made and little recognition that, by 1994, the company was progressing well, particularly in its partnership with Honda. That partnership may well have offered the best

chance of success. Honda was certainly deeply offended by the manner in which the partnership was broken up and the sale to BMW took place, but that is history.
When BMW took over Rover, I am sure that it wanted to develop the whole company. I do not subscribe to the theory that it was always interested just in taking Land Rover. BMW deserves credit for its management effort and the vast resources that it has invested. However, I find it strange that in such a professional organisation, some very strange steps have been taken in the past 12 months. No one doubted that the launch of the Rover 75 was vital to the success of the company. I cannot understand why the launch ceremony was accompanied by a public lecture on poor productivity in the company by the then chairman. That overshadowed the launch, which is exactly what should not have happened.
A climate of uncertainty has plagued Rover over the years. It does not need a marketing genius to work out that if there is uncertainty over the future of a company, it will have an effect on the sales and the products. That is what has happened.
The most amazing U-turn is now being executed. Only a few weeks ago, the new chairman of BMW was talking of his commitment to Rover and its development. I reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for Northfield—that the people of the west midlands took that commitment at face value. The Government amendment refers to the major losses that BMW has suffered and the great pressure put on the company. I agree that it has suffered heavy losses, but it always said that that would be the case. There is no surprise in that. The strategy was to move through that period and bring the company to profitability. The Government should not be too timid in pointing out that the strategy has altered out of all recognition.
However, I have some sympathy for BMW. It offered to invest £1.5 billion in modernising Longbridge. The Government offered another £150 million, doubtless after some negotiation. I am not sure that the Secretary of State can say that that £150 million was of no particular relevance and not a crucial amount. On 23 July, when announcing the agreement to provide £152 million of aid, he said:
This is great news for Longbridge, the West Midlands and the country as a whole. The future is an exciting one and I look forward to Longbridge taking on its competitors, winning and becoming a world leader.
We cannot renege on that important decision.
My concern relates to the process of examination. The hon. Member for Northfield made the point. There has been a nine-month delay and a six-month delay. The Secretary of State said on the radio this morning that six months is speedy—I think that I quote him correctly—by European Commission standards. He may well be right, but that prompts the question of whether it should be the case.
It is unacceptable that such an investigation at such a crucial moment should take so much time. I do not agree with the Secretary of State's contention that it was not a factor in the BMW decision simply because it was not mentioned in the press release. That is not my information. I fear and suspect that it had a disproportionate impact on the change of strategy in Munich. BMW saw a company sustaining losses of £700 million a year, but it was prepared to invest a further


£1.5 billion. The company saw that £150 million was offered by the British Government, but that the Commission could not make up its mind in six months—or, to be frank, much longer. That does not seem a particularly sound process by which these matters are decided.
I do not take an extreme view on Europe, but the Government—and, perhaps, everyone—should take note that middle England is becoming more and more disillusioned with the bureaucracy, delay and regulation that seem to characterise the EU as it is presently constituted.
We can all seek to diagnose what has gone wrong, and acres of newsprint have been devoted to that this morning. However, the real issue is what now can be done. Part of Rover, self-evidently, has a future inside BMW. We are unclear about where Land Rover will go or what its parent will be, but we can foresee that it will have a good future, wherever that may be. We may want to come back to debate the details of that.
The press today has written off the prospects of the other part of Rover—the car-making part, which makes the Rover 75 and the other Rover vehicles and which now, we understand, includes MG. I suggest that that should not necessarily be written off, and that there could be a future—although there is a big pit to climb out of. However, it is not mission impossible, and I shall draw an analogy to prove it.
In the mid-1980s, the van business of Leyland was to be sold off to General Motors; one or two colleagues might remember our debates then. The DTI argued at the time that this was the only course open to be taken with the company, although the plan envisaged the closure of the Birmingham plant. One or two of us did not agree with that diagnosis and the sale did not take place. The company was given its management independence; the company survives, and it prospers.
I cannot say whether that will be the outcome on this occasion, but I plead not for more and more money from the Treasury, but for public support and media understanding for any efforts that are made to turn the car-making part into a viable business. That is what we want. We are good in this country at dismissing effort and writing obituaries. We need support for any efforts that are made to achieve recovery.

Mr. Steve McCabe: I take no pleasure in participating in this debate; this is a sad day for the west midlands. We have heard that if Longbridge closes or substantially cuts back, that would cost about 9,000 jobs, and the multiplier effect might result in a further 40,000 jobs being lost across the west midlands. Some 20,000 of those will be in Birmingham, many in my constituency. We could see unemployment in Birmingham rising to 15 per cent. if the worst scenario is played out. Over 2,000 companies in the west midlands in the automotive supply chain are vulnerable to a substantial shutdown at Longbridge, and it is estimated that they could lose about 30 per cent. of their business as a result.
It is true that Birmingham has been able to diversify following the earlier job shocks of the 1980s recessions, and that financial, professional and business services are rapidly emerging as Birmingham's main earners. None

the less, Longbridge continues to play a vital role in the life and livelihoods of Birmingham people. I agree with the policy director of the Birmingham chamber of commerce, who said only yesterday that
it could be a huge disaster for the region, particularly if it goes to a buyer from outside the automotive industry.
Consequently, like many other hon. Members, I think that we need urgent information about Alchemy Partners. We have had some information from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), but that only added to my worries. We need to know what the company's plans are and whether another car company is waiting in the wings.
We also need to know whether Alchemy Partners intends to run Rover production at about 250,000 units, as suggested in today's Financial Times, which is about a quarter of present capacity. I notice that Jon Moulton is quoted as saying that he looks to exit as quickly as possible, within at least three years. That is hardly an encouraging signal for the workers at Longbridge. After all, he is the man who sacked 120,000 workers within days of taking over Parker Pens.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Is it not strange that BMW effectively gave 48 hours' notice of its intention to get rid of the plants? Does the hon. Gentleman think that BMW wants Rover cars to be in competition with it in the future, or does it simply want a fire sale to close Rover down as quickly as possible?

Mr. McCabe: None of BMW's recent announcements have been well timed or helpful. Since BMW's acquisition of Rover, there have been persistent rumours about BMW's real intentions, and it has specifically been suggested that it wanted to get its hands on the Land Rover four-wheel drive technology and the other profitable parts of the company. I wanted to believe that BMW was telling the truth when it denied those rumours and I initially interpreted its investment at Longbridge and the development of the new Mini assembly, as well as the promise of £1.7 billion of investment, as evidence that it was acting in good faith. However, it appears today that that trust was misplaced.
I do not deny that BMW has experienced problems at Longbridge. It is an old plant, as everybody acknowledges. However, the treatment of the people who work for Rover has been a disgrace. The workers have given all that they can. They accepted BMW's new and much less favourable working conditions, they have come to terms with huge job losses and they have put their faith in the promises and assurances of the BMW executives. However, the workers have been let down.
Unfortunately, the recent experience is not new. It is part of a much longer trend for which the Opposition have to take some of the responsibility. In 1988, when they were in Government, they sold Rover to British Aerospace for £150 million, in clear breach of EU rules. That was just the start of what has proved to be a succession of shoddy deals at the workers' expense, especially those at Longbridge. Although BAe was later forced to pay back a large part of the sweeteners that it received, it still made a profit of £400 million on a company that it had held on to for only five years.
In fact, as part of the initial giveaway by the Conservative Government, BAe was not allowed to relinquish control of Rover for five years on pain of


incurring financial penalties. BAe waited five years and six months before selling Rover to BMW, and it is clear that BAe never had any commitment to Rover. The Conservative Government must have known that, even when they were going out of their way to flog the company on the cheap. [Interruption.] I am not quite sure what the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) said, but the point is that Rover was flogged on the cheap in breach of European rules. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) said, if one reads the NAO report, the criticisms are clear. Indeed, the report from the Select Committee on Trade and Industry contains damning criticisms. There is no doubt about what was intended.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said, which was that the Secretary of State has just given £500 million to British Aerospace, the company that the hon. Gentleman has been criticising. Is he saying the right hon. Gentleman has got that wrong as well?

Mr. McCabe: The problem with the hon. Gentleman's position is that my right hon. Friend made money available as part of a negotiated deal. I am talking about a deal on the cheap that was in breach of European rules, over which the previous Government were criticised by the National Audit Office and by a Select Committee of this House. The two sets of circumstances are pretty different.
The matter did not end with the fiasco of the sale to British Aerospace. When that company then decided to offload Rover to BMW, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the then President of the Board of Trade, said that it was part of a strategy to help British industry win. Some strategy, some win: I do not think that people at Longbridge feel that they have won today.
There have been several comments about BMW's suggestion that the problems stem from the strength of the pound. Yet that ignores the facts—that BMW's sales in the UK benefit from the strong pound, that the company has already screwed down its UK suppliers to the tightest possible margins, and that it has even proposed paying them in euros. I therefore do not know how much weight should be placed on that argument.
The strength of the pound has contributed to Rover's problems, but UK car output last year reached its highest level for 27 years. That was largely due to increased export sales, with two out of three cars going to the overseas market. During the same period, Rover car sales fell by nearly 25 per cent. That must in part be due, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said, to the persistent sabotaging of the product by BMW's untimely speculations.
Sadly, BMW is pulling the plug at the very time when sales have stabilised and even begun to rise, especially in mainland Europe. It is difficult to understand the company's strategy.
The Opposition have tried to blame the Government for the recent turn of events. Perhaps they should reflect on the fact that the previous Conservative Government initiated the chain of events that have finally done for Rover. Moreover, while the Government were negotiating grant aid for BMW last year, the former shadow trade and

industry spokesman, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who is no longer present, opposed the Government's offer of grant aid to Longbridge. He is on record as saying that he is opposed to large public investment to help regions hit by job losses. I think that the people in Longbridge know whom they would rather have to depend on in a crisis such as this.
I have some sympathy for BMW in one respect—I agree with the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield about this—and that is with regard to the actions of the European Commission in dealing with the grant inquiries. I do not accept that the European Commission's investigation was vital to BMW's announcement, but we are entitled to wonder what its true purpose was.
Commissioner Monti said originally that the Commission merely wanted to look at the proposals. It may be that BMW always intended to undertake the asset stripping in which it has now indulged, and that the company's earlier pronouncements were merely a blind. We shall probably never know, but the Commission's actions have not exactly helped matters.
I want to know what Commissioner Monti really meant when he talked about transparency. Was he simply ensuring that, having announced investigations into two very different grant proposals involving Volkswagen and Fiat, Britain's proposals also had to be investigated so as not to upset other member states? I think that it is reasonable to know what exactly was intended. As others have said, the Commission has not exactly endeared itself to the Longbridge work force by its actions.
We are left to deal with the legacy that BMW has bequeathed. We need to know urgently what Alchemy's real intentions are. We need to know exactly what BMW has agreed, and if we can trust its word this time. Above all, we must do all that we can to rescue the economy of the west midlands and the livelihood of its people, and to secure a strategy for long-term, modern automotive production in the west midlands, particularly in fields such as the telematics industry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. My understanding is that the wind-up speeches will begin at 20 minutes to the hour. It will therefore probably be possible to have two Back-Bench speeches on either side if hon. Members speak for less than 10 minutes apiece.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: I begin by paying tribute to my Front-Bench colleagues, who rightly changed the subject of today's Supply day debate so that we might discuss the serious events at Rover. I doubt whether Ministers would have been prepared to make a statement tonight. We are not used to Ministers being forthcoming about important information that affects our constituents. Therefore, I want to say how right I think it is that the Conservative party believed it appropriate to discuss today's extremely important announcement.
It is a shame that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber because, although I have a personal regard for the right hon. Gentleman, I thought it discourteous of him not to accept an intervention from someone whose constituency includes part of the Longbridge plant—the plant's location is shared between my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden). I would not have expected such a discourtesy from the right hon. Gentleman.
Perhaps the Minister who is replying to the debate will pay due heed to what I wanted to ask the Secretary of State. I listened very carefully to BMW's announcement today and the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of it. His remarks contained no guarantees about the level of employment that would continue at the Longbridge factory. There was not even a guarantee that the Longbridge factory would continue to produce cars. In fact, when the right hon. Gentleman said that he would be speaking to Alchemy this evening about the plant's prospects and future, he said that cars "should" continue to be produced there. I find that a worrying use of language.
I would be grateful if the Minister could shed any light on what guarantees there are for employment at the factory. As the hon. Member for Northfield and others have said, many people are facing the potential loss of their job at the factory. [Interruption.] I am not taking any interventions, because of the discourtesy shown to me and also because of the limit on time.
I want to talk about the 9,000 jobs that are at stake—we hope that they will not be lost—as well as the wider midlands perspective that takes in 50,000 jobs, and the suppliers that face the loss of their contracts. There is no doubt that, despite the barracking of Labour Members, this is a very sad day for the midlands. It is a sad day for my constituents and for many others who have had a rollercoaster ride over the future of the Longbridge factory ever since I became the local Member of Parliament in 1997, and before that. They must have spent the night worrying about today's announcement, and I feel sorry for them. Despite today's announcement, their worries will not have ceased, because we simply do not know what the future is, irrespective of what has been announced. We know some details, including, sadly, the fact that Longbridge will lose the exciting prospect of production of the Mini to Cowley.
Alchemy, and, one presumes, Longbridge, will continue to make the MG. That is exciting, and a piece of good news, but anyone who knows anything about car production knows that the MG is an exciting niche car, not a mass-produced one, which makes it unlikely that its production at Longbridge, or anywhere else, would employ the number of people currently employed at Longbridge.
If I understood the statement correctly, the R30—the smaller version of the Rover 75, which will continue on licence at Cowley—which would have succeeded the soon-to-be outdated Rovers 25 and 35, will not be sold to Alchemy along with the Rover name. BMW will produce it in some form somewhere else under a name we do not know. But that car is extremely important to the Rover range's place in the volume car market. The fact that the brand does not go with the sale worries me.
It is hard not to be gloomy. Indeed, my gloom is shared by the unions—an unlikely alliance, perhaps—and every midlands Member must be feeling the gloom at present. The Longbridge work force do not deserve it. They had a reputation in the 1970s and before for being somewhat difficult, but they are experienced and their willingness to accept changes in practices in the past few years has been exemplary. They have done all they can to show good faith in the production of cars at Longbridge and have tried to maintain their jobs by showing the flexibility required of a modern car production factory. After all that willingness to change and to accept the new world of car

manufacturing, today's announcement is a kick in the teeth. Their good will has been resoundingly rejected by the BMW board, and we wait to see what Alchemy will bring.
I was extremely alarmed when my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) described Alchemy's investment profile. We all know what venture capitalists are. They go in and out on property speculations of different sorts.

Mr. Butterfill: indicated dissent.

Miss Kirkbride: Perhaps my words are a little over-anxious.

Mr. Peter Luff: Venture capitalists can be like that.

Miss Kirkbride: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) comes to my rescue. Venture capitalists can be like that.
Clearly, Alchemy's track record to date makes it hard to see how it can take on responsibility for Longbridge. Earlier this week, the plant was considering investment of £1.7 billion in new car production facilities for the smaller range of the Rover 75. It is hard to see how Alchemy can begin to harness the optimism that we had just a few days ago. The record is worrying and we must wait for more information.
I wanted to put those remarks on the record. We must consider the feelings and thoughts of the work force and their families. How will they pay their mortgages if things go pear-shaped at the plant?
Political flak has come at us from Labour Members, but it was outrageous for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) to claim that all the problems arose from decisions taken by the previous Conservative Government. His statement has no credibility. The problem is huge; many people have been involved. There are demand difficulties in the international car market; we realise that. Larger issues are at stake.
However, Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Northfield—who has left the Chamber—must accept that at least a scintilla of blame attaches to the Government. BMW has had to contend with the exchange rate during the past few years. Any Member who represents a midlands constituency, or has dealings with BMW, is only too aware that the company regards the exchange rate as one of its principal problems.
We also know that Rover is not the only company to suffer—although it seems to have taken the fall. There is a problem with the exchange rate, and there have been problems with the grant in aid and with the European investigation. Those matters have been raised by other hon. Members, so it would not be fair to go into them further.
Labour Members must grow up. They must realise that the situation is difficult, but that they have responsibility for their actions—it is not always the fault of somebody else. It would be nice to hear a little more reality in the subsequent contributions of Labour Members.

Mr. Terry Davis: Unlike the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), I not only represent people who work at Land Rover and Longbridge, but I drive a Rover car.
What was significant about the speech made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) was not her attempt to blame the Government for the crisis at Rover, but what she did not say. Only a few years ago, Conservative Members would have blamed all the troubles at the Rover group on the people who work there. It is significant that we have not heard that today. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) paid tribute to the people who work for Rover. For the first time in my political life, I agree with him. He is right; the people who work at Rover have transformed industrial relations there. The present crisis at Rover cannot be blamed on those who produce the cars.
Fifteen years ago, the Rover group was making a profit. What has gone wrong? My hon. Friends are right to criticise the sale of Rover to British Aerospace at a giveaway price, and to draw attention to reports from the National Audit Office, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and the Public Accounts Committee. However, those reports were produced several years ago.
It is true that British Aerospace treated the Rover group as a milk cow to get over its short-term cash-flow problem, but that was also some years ago. Then, British Aerospace sold the Rover group and split it up. Jaguar was sold to one company. The van company, mentioned by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, and Leyland Trucks were sold to DAF. We were told that was a good thing. The rest of the group was sold in a package to BMW. What happened then? DAF pulled the plug on the van factory and the truck factory. The van factory has been revived—thanks to all-party support and with help from the previous Tory Government during their dying days. That company is now a success, but when it was owned by DAF, the decisions taken in the boardroom were to protect jobs in the Netherlands at the expense of jobs in Birmingham. That was inevitable because ownership had been transferred abroad. The same thing is now happening at Longbridge.
My hon. Friends and Opposition Members are correct to point out that the exchange rate is part of the problem. It is not only in the motor industry that jobs are disappearing; there have been tremendous job losses at the Dunlop factory in Birmingham—attributed by the owners directly to the exchange rate, resulting in the transfer of much tyre production to Germany.
It is not as simple as that, however, because there is another problem. The exchange rate influences our exports, but it does not account for the slump in Rover's sales in this country. The big problem affecting the Rover group is sales and marketing. I wish my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State well at his discussions with representatives of Alchemy tonight, but the big question that he should put to the new owners of Long bridge is not how they will produce more cars, but how they will sell more of them. That is a management responsibility, and that is the question that should be put to the new managers who will take over the Longbridge factory.

Mr. John Butterfill: I shall be very brief, but I want to clarify some of the remarks that I made about Alchemy in an intervention on the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable).
Alchemy is certainly smaller than the company that one would expect to take over a plant such as Longbridge. The deal that it is doing for Longbridge dwarfs anything that it has taken on to date. However, I do not want it to be thought that I was in way criticising the company. It has a good reputation and has been involved in several successful investments. According to the British Venture Capital Association's handbook, it has invested in
ESP, Goldsmiths plc, Instem plc, Paramount Hotels, Ushers of Trowbridge plc.
The hon. Member for Twickenham referred, I think, to the final company in that list.
Alchemy specialises in rescues, turnarounds and management buy outs, so it is possible that it is in serious discussions with some of the senior management at Longbridge. However, it is equally true that it does not of itself possess the resources that would take a plant, such as Longbridge, forward for the future. When the Secretary of State meets John Moulton of Alchemy Partners this evening—I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not here now—I hope that he will, as a priority, discuss exactly how Alchemy intends to obtain the long-term funds to secure the future of the company.
We all hope that the deal with Alchemy is successful and that it will give the workers at Longbridge the success that they deserve following all the changes in which they have participated in recent years. However, it is important that we receive a little more detail on how that will be achieved. There is hope, because one of the main sources of funding for Alchemy's existing investments is United States and middle east investors. Perhaps, the company has a secure source of long-term funding, but it is a priority for the Secretary of State to establish that fact this evening if possible.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Possibly, this has been a more significant debate than the Opposition anticipated when they tabled their motion. In seeking to gain party political advantage from it, they have unwittingly raised a major issue about British industry and British manufacturing industry in particular. They would do well to address that issue in opposition, and they will have plenty of time to do that.
The history of the motor industry and other manufacturing industries in this country is one of continual decline. Under successive Governments and successive managements, we have seen nothing but the United Kingdom losing out to European and international manufacturers in terms of market share, product development and all the things that go towards a successful manufacturing industry. It ill behoves the Opposition to try to gain party political advantage from the debate, because that is not what it is about. Arrangements were entered into with BMW in good faith.

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman talks about the arrangements that were entered into, but we do not know what deal the Government brokered. The Secretary of


State said that these deals are subject to commercial confidentiality. How can we make a judgment when we do not know the details of the negotiations?

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Lady understands nothing. It was her Government who entered into the arrangements and allowed BMW to gazump the existing arrangements. It all started some five years ago, when the Government allowed BMW to gazump Honda, much to the disgust of the Japanese, and buy Rover. Her Government were absolutely responsible for the arrangements that governed that deal. If she did not know about that, it was up to her to find out about it.
I shall tell the hon. Lady what those arrangements were. BMW committed itself to reserving the marque of Rover and to reserving Rover as a manufacturing entity in the UK. BMW said that it would continue all the arrangements that were already in train between Rover and Honda. Those were the arrangements that the hon. Lady's Government entered into.
That deal came to my attention when I was at the Treasury, when out of the blue we heard that BMW wanted to close down Longbridge. BMW did not want to know about the arrangements. It does not care about workers in Longbridge; it is concerned about workers in Munich. The hon. Lady looks distressed, but we must understand the basic fact that despite all the so-called multinational and global investment and industry, each major national company looks after its own people first, and others afterwards.
In that sense, I do not blame the Germans for pulling the plug on Longbridge, which is what they are doing. BMW says that it has made losses, but I say to BMW, "You have had this company for five years. You said that you would make a success of it. I did not doubt your word." I did not doubt BMW's word because one could look at the company's glittering success in Munich. Now decisions about the British motor industry are being made in Munich by Frau Quandt and her family. On another date in the historical calendar the situation could have been quite different.
That situation is not the fault of this Government or this Secretary of State, or indeed any of his predecessors. If any fault is to be found, it is with the British failure in manufacturing industry. The hon. Lady, who in her great wisdom initiated the debate, does not want to consider that. She says that we did not do well enough with the aid application to the European Commission, but everybody knows that everything possible was done by this Government and previous Governments to get the necessary aid. Everybody knows also that European aid has not had the slightest influence on BMW's decision today to dump Rover.
BMW has dumped Rover because it does not suit interests any more. That is fine for BMW, but what about us? What about our employers and employees? [Interruption.] I beg the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) to listen for a moment. In the City and everywhere else one sees that global activities are taking place and global entities are being formed, but within those entities the national interest prevails. I beg hon. Members to think about that for a moment. Let us consider the City of London—the citadel of British power where our people prevail. We are increasingly being subsumed into other, bigger entities, which are seemingly global but in reality are nationally oriented.
Returning to the car industry, one sees the motorcycle industry and machine tool industry as subsidiary, but in all those industries this country is losing out and we are not as strong as we ought to be. Obviously, it is too late for BMW even to reconsider its decision. Why has BMW taken that decision? Because it is in its interests. The national interest there is predominant. Had it been a factory in southern Germany—in Munich—that was at stake, such a clear-cut, brutal decision would not have been taken.
Who should we blame for that? We can look back to five years ago. It is not as though the decision had to be taken overnight, or the facts were not already known. It is not as though there has not been a magnificent increase in productivity and quality of product. For one reason or another, BMW chose not to manufacture it in the UK.
Fair enough. That is BMW's decision, but is it good enough? Do we, a great nation in our own right, accept that decisions are taken irrespective of our Government's views on the matter, and irrespective of what that company in Germany said when it bought into and took control of our industry? Is all that unconditionally acceptable to us?
We have nothing to be ashamed of with regard to labour productivity. The costs of production in the UK are 30 to 40 per cent. less—I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) listening to this—than they are in Germany, so what is the problem?
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton smirks, and I find that offensive.

Mrs. Browning: I was not smirking.

Mr. Robinson: Indeed, she was. Our jobs, our people—[Interruption.] Now the hon. Lady laughs. That is even better. It becomes her well, but we care about British industry and the British motor industry. We care about what we still have of our manufacturing industry—while it lasts.
The issue transcends party politics. It does not offend any party political dogma, or rather, it should not. It is an issue that affects us all as citizens of the United Kingdom. Unless we realise that in the case of global industry, the globally competitive aspects pertain most of all with regard to the management of it, we shall lose out. If we are happy to lose out—to sit back and see it all happen, and imagine that we will be saved by the internet or some other marvellous new technology where the English language prevails—fine. However, I say to hon. Members that that will not do. This country, and any mature democracy such as ours, must have as its basis some major industries and activities under its own ownership and managerial control.
I am delighted that the Opposition initiated the debate tonight. It allows us to highlight matters that go beyond party political issues. The Opposition will regret having raised the issue this evening. We know the issues that really matter—[Interruption.] Yes, jobs—very much so. Who did nothing in that regard? We have done all we can to protect jobs.
I wish Alchemy well. We must give it every support. I am sure that the Government will do so, as we did for BMW, and I hope that Alchemy will respond more positively and constructively to the support that it gets from the Government than BMW has done.

Mr. Tony Baldry: It was a little difficult to follow the comments of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). Can the House agree that it is pointless for everyone to try to find someone to blame—the Germans, the family, and so on? For many of us, there are large numbers of jobs, families and households at stake—in Oxford, East, in Banbury and in the whole of Birmingham.
My hon. Friends on the Front Bench are to be congratulated on initiating the debate, without which hon. Members on both sides of the House would not have had the opportunity of speaking on this matter today. We all have a bad feeling in the pit of our stomach about what is happening. When the Secretary of State said in his closing comments that our thoughts were with the families at Longbridge, he was right, but it was a rather funereal peroration. Perhaps we can all move away from trying to find somebody to blame and, instead, think about what we can do to improve the situation for the future.
It seems that we all agree that the people at Longbridge have done their very best to deliver. Productivity is high and anything that has been asked of the company has come across. So where do we find the problems and what can we do to improve matters?
I have two requests of the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs and the Secretary of State. First, I ask the Government to give an undertaking that if need be they will return to this matter in Government time in the not-too-distant future. It should not be only for the Opposition to initiate debates on the subject.
We know nothing about Alchemy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) said. I am sure that it is a perfectly respectable company, but it has no proven track record in such a large enterprise. I hope that the Secretary of State will give an undertaking that he will return to the House to debate these matters. He says that he wants to obtain a great deal of information about Alchemy, and I hope that, perhaps on Monday, he will make a statement so that we can be kept up to date with what is happening.
I agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and others that we must recognise the impact that the strength of the pound is having on manufacturing industry throughout the country, and not only in the west midlands. There have been a number of comments from BMW spokesmen. I will not go through them because they have been listed in The Independent and other newspapers recently. They have said that they have been watching the exchange rate on almost a daily basis. It seems that, as much as anything, the exchange rate and the strength of the pound caused BMW to abandon its £1 billion investment in Longbridge.
This is not an issue that we can duck. If the strength of the pound is damaging UK manufacturing capability and capacity, the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee must take account of that when setting and determining interest rates.

Dr. Lynne Jones: What would the Conservatives do about the high value of the pound? If we want a loosening of monetary policy, it is hardly appropriate that the Tories should be calling for tax cuts and a loosening of fiscal policy as well.

Mr. Baldry: I hoped for better from the hon. Lady. To engage in point scoring in this debate is pointless. If the

strength of the pound is damaging UK manufacturing industry, we are entitled to say to the Bank of England that, when determining its policy, it should not focus only on inflation rates but should have regard to what is happening to the core of our manufacturing base.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) talked about what is happening in terms of the UK—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) should not be reading a newspaper in the Chamber.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West talked about what was happening in terms of UK competitiveness and the UK manufacturing base moving overseas. Those matters should be of concern to every Member of this place and should not be used for the scoring of political points. We are talking of jobs that, once lost, will not return. I urge the Secretary of State and the Minister to accept that we must all consider, in the absence of the blame culture, how we can turn the situation round.
I am sure that there are macro-economic issues that require consideration. The Secretary of State told us frequently what had not influenced BMW in its decision. He said that it had not been influenced by a lack of grant. However, he did not tell us what had influenced the company in deciding to move away from Longbridge. I suspect that one factor was the exchange rate and the fact that it could see itself continuing to make substantial losses while the pound stayed as strong as it did. If this House continues to be totally myopic about that, we cannot be surprised if the UK manufacturing base continues to be eroded.

Mr. Nick Gibb: We have had an important debate on an issue that is crucial to the British economy and vital to the jobs and prospects of 50,000 people. The Secretary of State has presided over a catalogue of incompetence. Incompetence characterised his handling of the Post Office network, the computerisation programme, and the level of the Post Office monopoly: is it £1 or 50p? He handled the Utilities Bill incompetently—it required 400 Government amendments, and the telecom and water sectors were removed from it halfway through Committee stage.
The Government's original approach to the Electronic Communications Bill was incompetent. There is confusion about competition policy and the Secretary of State made errors of judgment in his rip-off Britain campaign. I wonder how much damage that campaign has done to the sale of Rover cars in Britain and world wide? The Secretary of State now displays incompetence in his dealings with the European Commission on state aid to Rover.
The Government originally announced state aid with a flourish in March 1999 and the details were announced in June. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, between those two dates, only one meeting with the Commission took place.


The Commission was not formally notified until August 1999; the EU began its inquiry four months after that. Why did the Secretary of State take so long—six months after the first announcement in March 1999—to make the formal application? We have to wait until June this year for a formal EU decision. That is too late. Industry has to work at a different pace from that to which the Secretary of State is accustomed. However, the writing is on the wall for the right hon. Gentleman. In the row between the Secretary of State and his junior Minister over the site for the Synchrotron research facility, the Prime Minister backed Lord Sainsbury rather than the Secretary of State—another incompetent judgment.
When he opened the debate, the Secretary of State simply read out the BMW press release and the results of hours of research into previous aid notifications by the Conservative Government. His dismissal of the delay in achieving EU approval of the grant is astonishing. He now claims that the grant is irrelevant. When Rover achieves new investment, the grant is crucial and the success is a triumph for the Government, but when Rover is in difficulty, the grant is irrelevant and the problems have nothing to do with the Government.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I have just returned from watching the Chief Secretary and his constituents in Oxford on television. They were celebrating BMW's actions, yet the mood on the Floor of the House is completely different. Do we know whether the £140 million will go to Oxford rather than being lost to BMW?

Mr. Gibb: I am grateful for that intervention. It is good news for Oxford. Perhaps the Secretary of State is more concerned about that than the difficulties at Longbridge.

Mr. Burden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gibb: I shall not give way because we are running out of time. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) blamed the problem on the exchange rate; that is also BMW's view. He acknowledged that nothing could be done about the exchange rate, but he agreed with us about the damage that the rip-off Britain campaign causes.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) denied that the exchange rate had any effect in view of successful exports of BMWs, even when the Deutschmark was strong.
In an informed and balanced speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) made the important point that a period of six months to investigate the £152 million grant by the Commission is unacceptable in this day and age.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) pointed out that 2,000 companies could lose up to 30 per cent. of their business if Longbridge closes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) rightly pointed out that, but for the Conservative Opposition, the Secretary of State would not even have made a statement. She raised the important concern about jobs at Longbridge, on which the Secretary of State was so coy.
A bigger issue is at stake. There has been incompetence, delay and dither, and the Secretary of State incompetently failed to examine the aid issue in detail.

Had he done so, he would have worked out that the Commission would not accept that there was any realistic possibility of the Longbridge operation being transferred to Hungary. On the radio this morning, he also made the extraordinary statement, which he repeated in the debate, that—

Mr. Burden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Gibb: I will not. There is very little time left.
The Secretary of State said that the grant was irrelevant, despite boasting wildly about it when it was announced. For Conservative Members, the bigger issue is what has happened to the United Kingdom economy that has meant that, in the past month, we have faced the possible loss of Harland and Wolff shipyard and of one of our major indigenous car industries. What has happened since August 1996, when the chief executive of Siemens said:
Our decision to build the new semi-conductor plant here in the UK is a recognition of the pro-business environment which exists?
What has happened since October 1995, when the chairman of BMW said:
Great Britain is currently the most attractive country among all European locations for producing cars?
BMW does not think that now, so what has happened?
I can tell the House. There has been a new, damaging approach to manufacturing and to business since the Government came to power, the consequences of which we are beginning to see: £5 billion a year in extra regulatory costs on British business as a result of measures introduced by the Government; a proliferation of red tape, and new and more powerful interventionist regulations; £35 billion of extra taxes on business over this Parliament; more corporation tax; more stamp duty on business transactions; more duty on diesel; a new pension funds tax that puts up business' pension costs as well as its capital costs; the climate change levy; and IR35. All those measures are damaging to the British economy, to businesses that are trying to survive in a fiercely competitive world, to businesses large and small and to businesses that are trying to turn themselves around, as Rover was.
Damage cannot be undone by sending out an army of spin doctors to spread a different message or to manipulate media coverage. Government is about policy decisions and their effects on people's lives and prospects, not rhetoric or media handling. We need Ministers who concentrate their time and intellectual effort on getting those decisions right, rather than on worrying about the backdrop for the next press conference and the next photo opportunity. If Longbridge goes, the blame for the huge damage that will be done to the west midlands economy will lie with incompetent Ministers and an economic policy that is costly and damaging to British business.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alan Johnson): This issue is vital. Thousands of people face an uncertain future and thousands of families in the midlands will be extremely concerned about today's announcements. To be fair, many Opposition Members acknowledged that this is a complex matter, but it is a shame that the official Opposition—instead of coming to the House in the proper spirit and


seeking a mature debate—launched a shoddy personal attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which missed entirely. They also used today's sombre news to try to score a few petty political points, but failed dismally in that objective. They have demeaned the issue before us.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) made a convoluted point about grant aid. We negotiated that aid quickly because there was the threat that BMW might move to Hungary, and then sought clearance. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, there is no other example of negotiating grant aid and regional selective assistance where the deal is not done first, before seeking approval. The proposal was referred by the European Commission to a full investigation; nothing unusual there. In fact, the Government recently supported that measure in relation to Volkswagen. We went through the normal process. The actual deal was commercially confidential, as are all such deals. Opposition Members know that full well.
Apart from a couple of other spurious points, that amounted to the total contribution by Opposition Members to this important debate. There is no telling whether we would have come to the House to initiate a debate but I give the Opposition one point out of 10 for initiating a debate on an important issue. It is a shame that members of the Opposition Front Bench did not contribute more constructively.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), in a thoughtful seminar on the single European currency, referred to the strength of sterling—not a point raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton. I remind the House that the biggest rise in the value of the deutschmark against sterling was in the seven months leading up to the general election in May 1997. There were many interventions and contributions from this side of the House about the strength of sterling, which was cited also by the hon. Member for Twickenham in a balanced speech, but no one offered a solution. The remedy that he offered—joining the single European currency—was spurious, given current circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) displayed as always his commitment to his constituents and community, together with his expertise. He rightly paid tribute to the work force. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton did not refer once to the work force or the community in Longbridge and their concerns. It was left to my hon. Friend to do so. He pointed out that BMW has received help and assistance from government—particularly from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He made the important point, in relation to the strength of sterling, that BMW is a pan-European operator.
I was extremely pleased that my hon. Friend mentioned the success of motor sport in this country. Any debate about taking forward the British automotive industry needs to emphasise its success stories. Motor sport is certainly among them and is a benchmark against which most automotive companies should measure themselves.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) made from the Conservative Back Benches the eloquent speech that should have come from the Conservative Front Bench. He spoke of the media's

obsession with the days of Red Robbo, flares, tank tops and T.Rex. He spoke of how much Longbridge has changed since those days but said there was a strange tendency among the media constantly to hark back to them. I do not agree with everything that he said—he was kind enough to send me a note saying that he could not be here for my reply—but he struck the right note and made an important contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) emphasised the vital role of Longbridge in the region and highlighted the uncertainty surrounding the move to new owners, to which I will refer in a moment. I completely understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), as one of the two hon. Members with responsibility for Longbridge constituents. She asked whether there were guarantees about employment and the future. We are working on the basis of an announcement just made; discussions have yet to take place involving my right hon. Friend. I remind her that, during an Adjournment debate in January, she said:
We should credit BMW for investing in the Rover group when it took over the company. At the time, it was widely speculated that BMW was interested only in Land Rover and having a four-wheel-drive product in their vehicle range, and that it might not show the same commitment to the Rover car itself. It is hard to pin that accusation on BMW.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 26 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 70WH.]
In terms of the way in which the situation develops—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Far too many conversations are taking place.

Mr. Johnson: It is impossible to read the future, but I assure the hon. Member for Bromsgrove that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make the points about employment opportunities at the meeting that is to be held with Alchemy Partners this evening.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) made an important point about sales and marketing. Rover's sales slumped by 26 per cent. in 1999. That is to do with the way in which the product is marketed, to do with the sales, and to do with the whole management approach to promoting and selling these important products.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) mentioned the long-term success of Longbridge, which is obviously relevant to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) demonstrated his long experience of the industry. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) said that we should not have a culture of blame, and that it was entirely wrong to apportion blame in this instance. It is a shame that he did not mention that to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb).
BMW has not entirely removed itself from the picture. It will retain a manufacturing presence in Oxford, where the Cowley plant is producing the Rover 75, which is increasingly successful in the marketplace. It will also continue with plans for the new Mini. The forecasts for that new model are very optimistic, given that it builds on the heritage of the existing car. BMW has decided to continue with the engineering and design function in the United Kingdom, which constitutes a tremendous vote of confidence in the UK's engineering and design capability.
We will work constructively with the new owners to understand their future plans for the business, and to provide any support that may be justified and appropriate. The existing aid package cannot simply be transferred to new owners; any package will depend on the specific circumstances and plans of those new owners, and on whether they meet the proper conditions for support. I can, however, assure the House that we will do everything possible to ensure that Rover has a future in this country.
Rover is a name with which the British public strongly identifies. In the past, its fortunes and troubles have mirrored the economic and social issues of the day. It needs to get through the difficult times, not least because of the enormous effort and wholehearted co-operation of its work force over many years, but particularly since the BMW takeover in 1994.
In 1998, BMW-Rover undertook a wide-ranging review of Rover Group's activities. As part of that, BMW shared with Rover's employees its plans for the future, and explained that their success depended on the achievement of significant cost reductions and—importantly—new agreements on competitive working practices. It is to the credit of the Rover employees that they rose to the challenge, and consented to more flexible working practices and productivity agreements.
Let me tell the House what is about to happen. The Secretary of State will meet Alchemy Partners later this evening. We shall want to clarify BMW's intentions in relation to Land Rover. The Secretary of State will visit Rover sites in the west midlands tomorrow. A key issue in relation to Longbridge is whether transfer of ownership to Alchemy Partners is concerned, and what the plans for the business are. The Government will be anxious to work closely with new owners to maximise the chances of success for the Rover business, and to consider what support might be justified and appropriate. Rover wants to be part of the success story of the British car industry.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I believe that the Minister has ended his speech anyway.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 275.

Division No. 116]
[7 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Allan, Richard
Brady, Graham


Amess, David
Brake, Tom


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Browning, Mrs Angela


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Baker, Norman
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Baldry, Tony
Burns, Simon


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Butterfill, John


Bercow, John
Cable, Dr Vincent


Beresford, Sir Paul
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Blunt, Crispin



Body, Sir Richard
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Boswell, Tim



Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Chidgey, David





Chope, Christopher
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Clappison, James
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
McLoughlin, Patrick



Madel, Sir David


Collins, Tim
Major, Rt Hon John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Malins, Humfrey


Cotter, Brian
Maples, John


Cran, James
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Curry, Rt Hon David
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Moore, Michael


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Moss, Malcolm


Day, Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Norman, Archie


Duncan, Alan
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Ottaway, Richard


Evans, Nigel
Page, Richard


Faber, David
Paice, James


Fabricant, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Fallon, Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Feam, Ronnie
Prior, David


Flight, Howard
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Robathan, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fox, Dr Liam
Ruffley, David


Fraser, Christopher
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Gale, Roger
St Aubyn, Nick


Gibb, Nick
Sanders, Adrian


Gill, Christopher
Shepherd, Richard


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gray, James
Soames, Nicholas


Green, Damian
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Grieve, Dominic
Steen, Anthony


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gary


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Stunell, Andrew


Hammond, Philip
Swayne, Desmond


Hancock, Mike
Syms, Robert


Harris, Dr Evan
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hayes, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Townend, John


Horam, John
Tredinnick, David


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Trend, Michael


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tyrie, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Walter, Robert


Jenkin, Bernard
Wardle, Charles


Key, Robert
Waterson, Nigel


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Wells, Bowen


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Whittingdale, John


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Wilkinson, John


Lansley, Andrew
Willetts, David


Letwin, Oliver
Willis, Phil


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Wilshire, David


Lidington, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Yeo, Tim


Loughton, Tim



Luff, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Mr. John Randall and


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Banks, Tony


Ainger, Nick
Barnes, Harry


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Battle, John


Alexander, Douglas
Bayley, Hugh


Allen, Graham
Beard, Nigel


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Ashton, Joe
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Atkins, Charlotte
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Austin, John
Bennett, Andrew F






Benton, Joe
Godman, Dr Norman A


Bermingham, Gerald
Godsiff, Roger


Best, Harold
Goggins, Paul


Betts, Clive
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Grocott, Bruce


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Grogan, John


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Hain, Peter


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Burden, Richard
Hanson, David


Burgon, Colin
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Butler, Mrs Christine
Healey, John


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Hepburn, Stephen


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Heppell, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hill, Keith


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hinchliffe, David


Cann, Jamie
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Caplin, Ivor
Hoey, Kate


Casale, Roger
Hood, Jimmy


Cawsey, Ian
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hope, Phil


Clapham, Michael
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Howells, Dr Kim



Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hurst, Alan


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hutton, John


Clelland, David
Iddon, Dr Brian


Clwyd, Ann
Illsley, Eric


Coaker, Vernon
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cohen, Harry
Jamieson, David


Coleman, Iain
Jenkins, Brian


Colman, Tony
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cooper, Yvette
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Corbett, Robin



Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Corston, Jean
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cousins, Jim
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Cox, Tom
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cranston, Ross
Keeble, Ms Sally


Crausby, David
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Cummings, John
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Khabra, Piara S


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Kidney, David


Darvill, Keith
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Laxton, Bob


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Lepper, David



Leslie, Christopher


Dawson, Hilton
Levitt, Tom


Denham, John
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Linton, Martin


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lock, David


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McAvoy, Thomas


Ennis, Jeff
McCabe, Steve


Etherington, Bill
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McDonagh, Siobhain


Fisher, Mark
McDonnell, John


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McIsaac, Shona


Flint, Caroline
Mackinlay, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
McNamara, Kevin


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McNulty, Tony


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gapes, Mike
McWalter, Tony


Gardiner, Barry
McWilliam, John


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gibson, Dr Ian
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)





Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Singh, Marsha


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moffatt, Laura
Snape, Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Soley, Clive


Moran, Ms Margaret
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morley, Elliot
Spellar, John


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Squire, Ms Rachel



Steinberg, Gerry


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Stevenson, George


Mullin, Chris
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


O'Hara, Eddie
Stringer, Graham


Olner, Bill
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Palmer, Dr Nick
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pearson, Ian
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pendry, Tom



Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pickthall, Colin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pike, Peter L
Timms, Stephen


Plaskitt, James
Tipping, Paddy


Pond, Chris
Todd, Mark


Pope, Greg
Tounig, Don


Pound, Stephen
Trickett, Jon


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Purchase, Ken
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Tynan, Bill


Rammell, Bill
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rapson, Syd
Walley, Ms Joan


Raynsford, Nick
Ward, Ms Claire


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Watts, David


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rogers, Allan



Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rooney, Terry
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Rowlands, Ted
Wood, Mike


Ruddock, Joan
Woodward, Shaun


Ryan, Ms Joan
Woolas, Phil


Salter, Martin
Worthington, Tony


Sawford, Phil
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wyatt, Derek


Shaw, Jonathan



Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Noes:


Shipley, Ms Debra
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the actions of the Government that support the car industry, including delivering stable inflation and low interest rates, boosting support for supply chain activities and acting on the Foresight Vehicle Programme; welcomes the Government support for the Longbridge plant given through the offer of Regional Selective Assistance; understands that the major losses that BMW have suffered on Rover have put great pressure on BMW with respect to Rover; and congratulates the Government for playing its role in working closely with the company and the workforce to try to ensure there is a future for Rover.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee),
That the Welsh Grand Committee shall meet on Tuesday 4th April at half-past ten o'clock and between four o'clock and six o'clock at Westminster to take questions under Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and to consider the matter of the Budget Statement and its implications for Wales, under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales))—[Mr. Clelland.]

Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made and Question proposed,
That the Competition Act 1998 (Director's Rules) Order 2000 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITIONS

Gareth and Richard Perrett

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Some 700 residents of Halifax have given me this petition—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Will hon. Members who are not staying to hear the petition please leave quickly and quietly?

Mrs. Mahon: The petition of 700 residents of Halifax declares
that Inspector Gareth Perrett and PC Richard Perrett were found not guilty at Manchester Crown Court in February 1999 over an alleged incident on an aircraft in February 1998. They have since faced an internal discipline tribunal which has found them guilty, and required them to resign, therefore losing their careers and livelihoods. This is unfair. The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Home Secretary to revisit their case.

And the Petitioners remain etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Benefit Payments

Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon): I wish to present a petition on behalf of my constituents and other residents of North Yorkshire. There are more than 37,000 signatories, almost 9,000 of whom come from Skipton and Ripon. The petitioners declare:
We are concerned at the Government's plans to pay benefits directly into bank accounts instead of over the counter at post offices as this will have a serious impact on local post offices and endanger a mainstay of village life.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to rethink these proposals.
And the petitioners remain, yours faithfully, County Councillor Mrs. Shelagh Marshall and others.

To lie upon the Table.

Mentally Ill People

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Mike Wood (Batley and Spen): I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to initiate the debate this evening.
Estimates vary about the prevalence of mental health problems in our society, but something of the order of between one in four and one in six adults will suffer from mental illness at some time in their lives; that is illness ranging from so-called mild depression through to schizophrenia. That means that in a constituency such as mine, for instance, between 11,000 and 16,000 people are directly affected by at least one bout of such illnesses during their lifetime.
A recent survey conducted by MIND found that 90 per cent. of respondents had household incomes of less than £10,000 a year. Most people who use mental health services live in poverty, with over 80 per cent. being economically inactive. The Government's own national service framework for mental health states that unemployed people are twice as likely to suffer depression as those who work. It could just as easily have highlighted how much more predisposed they are to self-harm, up to and including taking their own lives. For that group, loss of benefits—and, often, just the threat of that loss—can have disproportionate consequences.
The issues thrown up by such illness and poverty are wide-ranging and profound, and they pose some of the most difficult problems which I and, I suspect, most other right hon. and hon. Members become involved in through constituency casework or surgeries.
In my area of north Kirklees, we are fortunate to have a mental health service that is as good as anywhere in the country's. Last year, for instance, it received from the Prime Minister the first NHS Nye Bevan award for joint working between mental health and social services. However, even here, mistakes occur, and people fall through the net.
In the belief that care is not just about health, but about all aspects of a person's life—including housing, employment and, crucially, income—I want to draw on the experiences of three of my constituents and how they, as mentally ill people, fared in the very specific area of accessing and sustaining a claim for benefits. Those people were entitled to the benefits, just like any other citizen, but were denied them because, I would contend, our benefits system is far too inflexible, and is often inadequate, especially when confronted by the myriad problems that the mentally ill present.
I would like an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that the matter is being treated seriously within the Department. I would like also a possible outline of the practical steps that are being taken to improve the kinds of situation that I am about to describe, and I would like to know that the Department is doing this work in liaison with other relevant agencies.
Constituent H is a paranoid man, living alone, who lost his job due to his illness. He quickly became so ill that he could not or would not leave the house, and therefore could not make a claim for benefits. The Benefits Agency


was eventually convinced by his family to send a home visitor whom, of course, the man would not admit to his home. Having gone to those lengths, the Department contended that there was nothing more it could do.
In the end, after months of keeping him, the man's extended family could afford to do so no longer and, essentially, had to abduct him from his own home, frogmarch him to the benefit office and guide his hand as he applied for the benefit for which he was so obviously eligible and which he now receives. Surely in such a case—where there was ample medical evidence of the man's condition and its prognosis—it should not have been necessary for the family to have to act in that way to access resources that were needed to care for him.
The second of my constituents, Miss C, suffers from depression. Her benefit was ended owing to a periodic review of the so-called all-work test. She received an initial letter that baldly stated that her benefit was under review, which had a profoundly adverse effect on her already frail mental health. As I said earlier, MIND found that just the threat of loss of benefit does harm, but at one of MIND's day centres close to my constituency some 80 per cent. of the people who attend have had that experience.
Miss C was eventually convinced to undertake the required medical or review. However, like many people suffering from mental illness, she cannot articulate well the problems that her illness poses for her in her daily life. So-called medicals or reviews that exclude carers and that are conducted quickly and brusquely—so quickly and brusquely that the claimants cannot do justice to themselves—would, I am sure, be condemned by the Minister, but they happen, and often to the mentally ill. That exacerbates the fact that the tests are designed more for those suffering a physical illness than a mental one. The answer to the standard questions, "Can you dress yourself? Can you feed yourself?", might well be yes for a mentally ill person, but the person asking the questions would not necessarily understand the amount of supervision that might he needed to get the mentally ill person to eat, or how much motivation might have to be generated to ensure that the person gets dressed.
I realise that the Government intend to replace the all-work test, but whatever comes next must be run by people who have a much greater insight into, and much more training in, the problems of the mentally ill if we are to see the real improvement in service that is needed. I would like to make a bid for the process to be predicated much more on helping people, some of whom have very profound problems, than on cutting corners or saving money.
Sadly, each year in England alone, some 4,000 people commit suicide. My third constituency example is just such a case and shows how mental illness plays a part in many of those—often preventable—deaths. My constituent, Mr. T, died in tragic circumstances and his death and the inquest featured extensively in the local and national media. At this point, I wish to place on record my thanks for the intelligent and sensitive way in which my local papers, not least the Batley News, dealt with those sad and harrowing circumstances. That was of enormous comfort to his family, most of whom now live in New Zealand, who still suffer from the shock of their relative's death and have many unanswered questions

about how and why their loved one died in such circumstances. In passing, I realise that it is not the responsibility of the Minister, but their shock was compounded when they were required to pay more than £235 for a transcript of the inquest, which they wanted to learn what lessons had been learned from his death.
Mr. T was an honours graduate in his forties who had suffered from schizophrenia for some years. He was hospitalised late in 1998 under the mental health legislation for reasons of self-harm. He was starving himself, and his weight had dropped from 16 stone to under 10 stone. During his period in hospital, his benefit was stopped and it was either not restarted on discharge or stopped again soon after. Because we have no access to the transcript, we cannot know for sure.
Within a matter of months, the man had starved himself to death with 9p in his pocket. When his body was discovered some weeks later, a scribbled note that lay nearby suggested that he believed that the authorities had killed him. If the hospital had notified the Benefits Agency of his discharge, or if there had been sufficient liaison between the two about the severity of his illness, my constituent would at least have had available to him the cash that was his due. It is stating the obvious to say that care in the community failed that man.
I believe that the policy introduced by the previous Government was developed for the wrong reasons, and then not properly resourced. However, the failings in what is fundamentally the right policy for mentally ill people have to be remedied quickly if more lives are not to be lost so needlessly.
At the inquest, the coroner was appalled by Mr. T's death, and suggested that there should be special DSS rules for those suffering from mental illness. I am sure that all hon. Members would welcome that, but in the meantime it might be possible to encourage relatively minor changes in staff attitudes, and to alter departmental procedures. Both could happen much more quickly, and have some effect.
We certainly need the introduction—perhaps I mean the reintroduction—of much greater discretion for staff in local DSS offices. Ministers in the Department, too, would have to have greater discretion, as too often they seem unable to intervene to right an obvious wrong in individual cases.
Not before time, society is beginning to accept the need for extra provision to improve access for citizens with physical disabilities. At most benefit offices these days, a ramp to the front door is a standard feature, but where are the ramps for people suffering mental illness? That illness is just as debilitating and life-limiting as the more obvious—and possibly more acceptable—physical illness.
Finally, I should like to place on record my thanks to organisations such as the Mental After Care Association. MIND, and my local authority welfare benefits office—especially to that office's first-rate staff members Lisa Drake and Robert Finnegan—for the help that has been extended to me in presenting this debate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mr. Wood) for the opportunity to respond to the very


important issues that he has raised this evening. He will know that not all the matters that he raised lie within the remit of my Department, but I shall make sure that I pass on the important observations that he has made.
My hon. Friend referred to three cases in his speech. One was especially tragic as it resulted in a death. I should like to begin by expressing my sorrow at the case and offering my sincere condolences to the family of my hon. Friend's constituent who died. It is clear that his constituent suffered because of a failure by the Department of Social Security and other agencies to provide the support that any of us would expect to be available for a person in the circumstances that my hon. Friend described. It is my intention to see that the necessary steps are taken and the relevant loopholes closed to ensure that that tragic circumstance will not be repeated, and that the lessons will be learned.
I know that my hon. Friend has been corresponding with the chief executive of the Benefits Agency and Her Majesty's coroner about this case. I am pleased that, as a direct result of that tragedy, new procedures have been created and adopted locally. They will shortly be adopted nationally by the Benefits Agency when it deals with people who have a history of mental illness. I will come to those new procedures in a moment.
However, I do not think it appropriate for me to discuss on the Floor of the House the details of an individual's claim for benefit. My hon. Friend raised the matter in a very proper way, and I should be more than happy to talk to him outside the Chamber about the specific people and events mentioned in his speech. In addition, there are some general comments that I can usefully make with regard to the issues raised in the debate.
It goes without saying that those who suffer any form of mental illness require special help when dealing with large, complex organisations—for example, when they want to establish their entitlement to benefit with the DSS. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, it is sometimes difficult to identify those who have a severe mental illness. Such illnesses can fluctuate and it is not always obvious who requires extra help, so I would like to explain some of the measures that the Department has undertaken to address the problems that this vulnerable group faces when claiming benefits.
The DSS and the Benefits Agency recognise that people with mental health problems must be treated sensitively. We are working closely with voluntary groups at a national and local level to address this issue in a practical and effective way. The Department tries to take into account the specific needs of people with mental illness.
Many of the measures that are in place to deal with these people have been developed in conjunction with the mental health lobby and make use of its experience and expertise. As a result of consultations with such organisations, many arrangements are in place to make the claims process easier. For example, people can request assistance from a third party to help complete claim forms for benefit or for support when being visited by Benefits Agency staff. The Department has worked with the Royal College of Psychiatrists and welfare groups on the design of the all-work test questionnaire and the format of the test for people with mental health problems.
Specialist training is given to staff who visit people receiving disability living allowance as part of the periodic inquiry process. The aim of the inquiry is to

ensure that all clients are receiving the correct amount of benefit. This can be particularly helpful to those who have a mental illness and, because of their difficulties and the complex nature of our benefits system, may not have explained their complete circumstances when making the original claim. In addition, we have appointed Pauline Thompson from the Disablement Income Group to help us deliver the training for Benefits Agency staff who visit these clients.
We try to identify those with severe mental illness early on in the claims process. Whenever appropriate, we will exempt people with a severe mental illness from having to undergo a medical examination to establish whether benefits are payable.
At a local level, we have developed close links with local authorities, welfare groups and voluntary organisations. These are valuable in helping us to assist many of the vulnerable groups to which we pay benefits. My hon. Friend has referred to cases in which such arrangements do not yet exist or have broken down. Despite this, there are many instances of good local liaison between the DSS or the Benefits Agency and non-governmental organisations, helping people to receive all the benefits and support to which they are entitled.

Audrey Wise: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mr. Wood) for initiating the debate. His presentation concentrated on adults with mental health problems. May I draw the Minister's attention to issues relating to children and young people? Most people working in the field worry that problems among children and young people are increasing. Their families can be plunged into poverty because of the extra tasks and problems involved. Has she considered any special problems that might arise in relation to children and adolescents?

Angela Eagle: Obviously, I am prepared to do so and to take on board my hon. Friend's comments. If she has more specific instances that she wants to discuss with me—again, not on the Floor of the House—I will be happy to listen to her and see what lessons can be learned.
As a direct result of the awful circumstances described by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen, Calderdale and Kirklees district Benefits Agency has adopted some new procedures. It encourages people to seek advice and advocacy support if they receive letters of requests that they do not understand. It has established a close liaison with the social services department. Where Benefits Agency staff know that a social worker has been assigned to a claimant, they are encouraged to keep in contact with that social worker. It has appointed a liaison officer to improve connections between the Benefits Agency and the psychiatric unit at the local hospital. It has instigated a new procedure to ensure that no decision will be made to withdraw benefit without the case being referred to a manager. I am pleased to say that new procedures will be adopted nationally by the Benefits Agency.
My hon. Friend may also be aware of the ONE service that is currently being piloted. All personal advisers involved in ONE have been given disability awareness training, including on mental illness issues, to help them provide an appropriate service to people who come into


contact with the ONE service, including those who have particular mental health problems. Many of the key disability organisations, such as MIND and the National Schizophrenic Fellowship, were consulted when the training programme was being developed. Those groups have also helped to draw up guidance for personal advisers.
I believe that many benefit recipients with mental health problems will welcome that new personalised help, which is being piloted in 12 areas. We can create a system that will be less daunting for many people who can find the current system frightening, confusing or a source of anxiety. The personalised service will also be central to the new agency announced earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
The Department of Social Security provides incapacity benefits to a large number of people with mental health problems. Procedures for doing so have been well developed and are generally regarded as successful. There is no room for complacency, of course. The issues raised by my hon. Friend demonstrate that work remains to be done in dealing with particular difficulties that people with mental illness may present to the DSS and other systems, such as social services departments, local help and health services. We must go further to ensure that people with mental health problems receive the service to which they are entitled. They must not fall into gaps between provision, being handed on from one institution to another with no one taking responsibility.
I believe that we can work to reduce the chances of another tragedy of the sort that befell my hon. Friend's constituent. The Benefits Agency's decision to ensure that the changes made in Calderdale and Kirklees are

established nationally will go some way to achieve that end. We shall continue working until we close all the loopholes.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for troubling the House so late, but I seek your assistance. I was this evening due to receive a battery of replies to written questions on the conduct of the Metropolitan police, the security services and a gun runner to Sierra Leone. The answers were not available for me in the Members' Lobby. I have since discovered that they are available for journalists in the Press Gallery, and that, although I had telephoned the Minister's private office for them, they are in the Library. I have access to them, but the person most entitled to them would have been denied them had I not ferreted around, and, indeed, trespassed in the Press Gallery where I am not supposed to go. Could the matter be looked into? All hon. Members are disadvantaged when Ministers' offices are tardy in this way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The hon. Gentleman must know that the Chair cannot control the answering of parliamentary questions. He will be aware, however, that Madam Speaker has made plain her strong view that Members should receive good service, and that it needs to be improved following some recent instances. I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench. We must hope that the matter will be rectified. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing it to the attention of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Eight o'clock.